<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16890" name=GENERATOR>

From: Love, Bruce -
OSHA
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:29 AM
To:
'JJB@Pietragallo.com'
Cc: Biersner, Robert - SOL; Garrahan, MaryAnn -
OSHA; 'chris@avalotis.com'
Subject: Avalotis Chimney Variance
Application

Importance: High

Attachments: DOC Letter
of Interpretation (8-2009).pdf

Mr. Bosick,

I met with OSHA's Solicitor's Office to
get agreement on how to proceed with processing the Avalotis permanent-variance
application.  Because the alternative conditions have been updated in
recently granted chimney-variance applications (subsequent to OSHA receiving the
Avalotis variance application), and because a letter of interpretation regarding
OSHA's de minimis policy as it pertains to certain
chimney-construction work has changed (see attached), Avalotis will need to send
to OSHA a letter that amends its application to include the alternative
conditions that OSHA now requires.  Specifically, Avalotis must
communicate to OSHA that it agrees to amend its application indicating to
include the conditions specified in the attached letter of interpretation
(revised August 24, 2009).  Avalotis must also indicate that it would amend
its application to include the following condition, which OSHA now requires in
variances granted to companies involved in chimney
construction:<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

(a)  At least 15 calendar days prior to
commencing any chimney-construction operation using the conditions specified
herein, the applicant must/would notify the OSHA Area Office nearest to the
worksite, or the appropriate State-Plan Office, of the operation, including the
location of the operation and the date the operation will commence;
and<o:p></o:p>

(b) The applicant must/would inform OSHA
national headquarters as soon as it has knowledge that it
will:<o:p></o:p>

(i)  Cease to do business;
or<o:p></o:p>

(ii)  Transfer the activities covered by this
permanent variance to a successor company.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

The letter amending the Avalotis variance application
must be addressed to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Health</st1:City>, <st1:country-region
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> Department of Labor, but sent
under cover addressed as follows:<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<st1:country-region
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> Department of Labor/OSHA
Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities
Room N3655
200 Constitution Avenue,
NW
<st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:State>, D.C. 20210<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Please don't hesitate to call if you have any
questions.<o:p></o:p>

Thank you,

~Bruce

Bruce A. Love, MBA, BS
EET

Frances Perkins
Building, Room
N3655

Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities

OSHA’s Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management

200 Constitution Avenue,
NW
Washington, DC 20210

(202)
693-2373


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36993-36994]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16089]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-601, OMB Control No. 3235-0673]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 15c3-5

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 15c3-5 (17 CFR
240.15c3-5) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange Act requires brokers or dealers with
access to trading directly on an exchange or alternative trading system
(``ATS''), including those providing sponsored or direct market access
to customers or other persons, to implement risk management controls
and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial,
regulatory, and other risks of this business activity.
    The rule requires brokers or dealers to establish, document, and
maintain certain risk management controls and supervisory procedures as
well as regularly review such controls and procedures, and document the
review, and remediate issues discovered to assure overall effectiveness
of such controls and procedures. Each such broker or dealer is required
to preserve a copy of its supervisory procedures and a written
description of its risk management controls as part of its books and
records in a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(e)(7) under the Exchange
Act. Such regular review is required to be conducted in accordance with
written procedures and is required to be documented. The broker or
dealer is required to preserve a copy of such written procedures, and
documentation of each such review, as part of its books and records in
a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(e)(7) under the Exchange Act, and
Rule 17a-4(b) under the Exchange Act, respectively.
    In addition, the Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent officer) is
required to certify annually that the broker or dealer's risk
management controls and supervisory procedures comply with the rule,
and that the broker-dealer conducted such review. Such certifications
are required to be preserved by the broker or dealer as part of its
books and records in a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(b) under the
Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 15c3-5 is mandatory.
    Respondents consist of broker-dealers with access to trading
directly on an exchange or ATS. The Commission estimates that there are
currently 570 respondents. To comply with Rule 15c3-5, these
respondents will spend a total of approximately 91,200 hours per year
(160 hours per broker-dealer x 570 broker-dealers = 91,200 hours). At
an average internal cost per burden hour of approximately $358.51, the
resultant total related internal cost of compliance for these
respondents is $32,696,340 per

year (91,200 burden hours multiplied by approximately $358.51/hour). In
addition, for hardware and software expenses, the Commission estimates
that the average annual external cost would be approximately $20,500
per broker-dealer, or $11,685,000 in the aggregate ($20,500 per broker-
dealer x 570 brokers and dealers = $11,685,000).
    Written comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 24, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16089 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44378]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0406]

Guidance on Voluntary Compliance With Training Requirements for
Personnel Serving on U.S.-Flagged Passenger Ships That Carry More Than
12 Passengers on International Voyages.

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of policy.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of CG-MMC Policy
Letter 02-21, titled ``Guidance on Voluntary Compliance with Training
Requirements for Personnel Serving on U.S.-flagged Passenger Ships that
Carry More than 12 Passengers on International Voyages.'' This policy
provides guidance to passenger vessel owners and operators on voluntary
compliance with the 2016 amendments to the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978, as amended (STCW Convention) and the Seafarers' Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code). Vessels may be subject
to detentions in foreign ports if personnel have not received
appropriate training in accordance with the STCW Convention and the
STCW Code.

DATES: CG-MMC Policy Letter 02-21 was issued August 05, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Policy Letter 02-21 is available in docket number USCG-2021-
0406 on http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this policy,
contact Megan Johns Henry, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Merchant Mariner
Credentialing Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division (CG-MMC-1);
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The International Maritime Organization
(IMO) establishes the minimum international standards of competence
including training requirements for mariners and maritime personnel
through the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW
Convention) and the Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
Code (STCW Code).
    In 2016, the IMO adopted amendments to the STCW Convention and the
STCW Code expanding the existing training requirements for personnel on
passenger vessels. These amendments entered into force on July 1, 2018.
These amendments have not been codified into national regulations at
this time. However, because the United States is signatory to the STCW
Convention, vessel owners and operators should be aware that their
vessels are subject to foreign port state control actions, including
detention, if mariners are not compliant with the STCW Convention and
the STCW Code.
    The Coast Guard has issued CG-MMC Policy Letter 02-21 to provide
guidance to passenger vessel owners and operators on voluntary
compliance with the 2016 amendments to the STCW Convention and the STCW
Code. The Coast Guard will not issue endorsements related to the
training of personnel on passenger vessels.
    CG-MMC Policy Letter 02-21 is not a substitute for applicable legal
requirements, nor is it itself a rule. The Coast Guard does not
currently require any mariner to meet the training requirements in CG-
MMC Policy Letter 02-21, paragraphs 4. a. (i) and (ii), in other words,
it is possible to comply with U.S. domestic legal obligations without
undertaking the specific trainings. Before creating any such
requirement, the Coast Guard would undertake a separate rulemaking.
    We issue this notice of availability in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 7313. If you have
questions about the policy letter, or believe that changes are
necessary, please contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this notice.

    Dated: August 6, 2021.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2021-17139 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 104 (Friday, May 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32438-32439]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0008]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from five individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0008 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0008. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0008), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0008. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0008 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The five individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    On July 16, 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (57 FR 31458). The current Vision Exemption Program was
established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the
statutes governing exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat.
107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the
procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case
basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision
standards of Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial

vehicle safely in intrastate commerce with the vision deficiency for
the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in
evaluating future safety, according to several research studies
designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of
these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future
performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic
violations. Copies of the studies may be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers collectively.\1\ The fact that experienced
monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver
program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the
same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are
also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will
continue to operate safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A thorough discussion of this issue may be found in a FHWA
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1996 and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-03-26/pdf/96-7226.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Thomas M. Bakeberg

    Mr. Bakeberg, 30, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye
since 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2020, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Bakeberg has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Bakeberg reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years,
accumulating 120,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 12
years, accumulating 120,000 miles. He holds a Class A3 CDL from South
Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jacob T. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 28, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2019, his
optometrist stated, ``Jacob has sufficiant [sic] vision to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Johnson reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 5 years, accumulating 50,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 5 years, accumulating 200,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael E. McClain, Jr.

    Mr. McClain, Jr., has had a coloboma in his left eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye has no
light perception. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Michael has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. McClain reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years,
accumulating 128,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 8
years, accumulating 64,000 miles. He holds a class AM CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Cory A. Rand

    Mr. Rand, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
150. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion, Cory Rand has sufficient and adequate vision to operate a
commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Rand reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 800,000 miles. He holds a
Class C CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and one conviction for moving violations in a CMV;
following too closely.

Paul L. Simmons

    Mr. Simmons, 40, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a sarcoidosis infection in 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``His right eye is normal,
and he has demonstrated that he has sufficient vision to operate a
commercial motor vehicle safely over the past ten years while having no
vision in his left eye.'' Mr. Simmons reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 375,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 6 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles. He
holds an operator's license from North Carolina. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
under the DATES section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-11548 Filed 5-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13734-13735]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06680]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Industry Guides, SEC File No. 270-069, OMB Control No. 3235-
0069.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Industry Guides are used by registrants in certain industries as
disclosure guidelines to be followed in presenting information to
investors in Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and Exchange Act
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) registration statements and certain other
Exchange Act filings. The paperwork burden from the Industry Guides is
imposed through the forms that are subject to the disclosure
requirements in the Industry Guides and is reflected in the analysis of
these documents. To avoid a Paperwork Reduction Act inventory
reflecting duplicative burdens, for administrative convenience the
Commission estimates the total annual burden imposed by the Industry
Guides to be one hour.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.

    Please direct your written comment to Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: April 2, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06680 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM Subject: Conference Call with Ingersoll Rand Attorneys, March 19, 2004 From: Steven Silverman, Attorney Office of General Council To: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), Air Docket A 2001 28; E DOCKET OAR 2003 0012 Date: April 15, 2004 ____________________________________________________________________________

On March 19, 2004, members of EPA staff ( including Cleophas Jackson, Phil Carlson, and myself) further discussed equipment flexibility issues with counsel for Ingersoll Rand ( Alan McConnell and Bill Lane). We discussed potential details of a technical hardship provision and potential details of a provision whereby equipment manufacturers could earn additional flexibilities for using Tier 4 engines before Tier 4 standards take effect. We also agreed to share draft regulatory language with them.


Flufenacet (121903)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: June 23, 2010

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2008.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2008.

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) pesticide usage data from
the CropLife America Foundation are used only if data are not available
from the other sources.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Flufenacet (121903)

Sorted Alphabetically

	Percent Crop Ttd.

				Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Avg.	Max.

1	Corn	600,000	<2.5	5

2	Pasture	1,000	<1	<2.5

3	Soybeans	60,000	<1	<2.5

4	Sweet corn	<500	<1	<2.5

5	Wheat	20,000	<1	<2.5

All numbers rounded.

<2.5	Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

<1	Less than 1 percent of crop treated

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16276-16279]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07899]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0651; FRL-9976-90-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA; Permitting Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GA EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, on
April 11, 2003. EPA is proposing to approve portions of a SIP revision
which includes changes to Georgia's rules regarding emissions standards
and permitting. This action is being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0651 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,

Georgia 30303-8960, or Joel Huey, Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Wong can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562-8726 or via electronic mail at [email protected]. Mr. Huey
can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On April 11, 2003, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval that involves changes to Georgia's SIP regulations. In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the Georgia
submission revising GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)--Permit by Rule
Standards. This submission also seeks to revise Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(nnn)--NOX Emissions from Large Stationary Gas Turbines and
Rule 391-3-1-.02(5)--Open Burning. EPA is not taking action on the
proposed changes to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(5) at
this time. On October 21, 2009, GA EPD submitted a letter withdrawing
from the submittal a proposed revision to Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(qqq)--Volatile Organic Compound From Extruded Polystyrene
Products Manufacturing Utilizing a Blowing Agent.\1\ On January 5, 2017
(82 FR 1206), EPA approved changes to Rule 391-3-1-.01--Definitions
that were also included in the April 11, 2003, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The October 21, 2009, letter is included in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)--Permit by Rule Standards

    GA EPD's Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6 establishes ``permit by rule''
\2\ standards for cotton ginning operations and applies to facilities
with a potential to emit in excess of the Part 70 program major source
thresholds. The rule provides that cotton ginning operations shall be
deemed to have a ``permit by rule'' if they (1) maintain a log of the
monthly production, and (2) limit annual production to 65,000 standard
bales of cotton during any twelve consecutive months.\3\ The rule also
stipulates that sources having potential emissions greater than major
source thresholds even after meeting these conditions, or that are
unable to meet these conditions, must obtain a title V operating permit
pursuant to Georgia's Part 70 program. GA EPD's March 14, 2003,
submittal would change the annual production threshold to qualify for a
``permit by rule'' from 65,000 standard bales of cotton ginned per year
(bales/year) to 120,000 bales/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Also known as an ``exclusionary rule'' or ``prohibitory
rule,'' a ``permit by rule'' is an approach that State and local
agencies can use to establish enforceable operational limits which
ensure that a source's potential emissions are below the major
source threshold. See, e.g., ``Guidance an Enforceability
Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec.
112 Rules and General Permits,'' Kathie A. Stein, Director, Air
Enforcement Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, January 25, 1995.
    \3\ In addition, GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(a)2 requires that
any facility wishing to operate under the cotton ginning ``permit by
rule'' shall certify its qualification in writing to the permitting
authority, and the permitting authority shall grant the conditions
and terms of the ``permit by rule'' by Certification letter to the
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the mostly mechanical nature of the cotton ginning
processes and the agricultural material handled, particulate matter
(PM) is the primary regulated pollutant of concern. Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(q) uses a process weight calculation to establish allowable PM
emission rates (in pounds per hour) from cotton gins based upon the
number of bales processed per hour. In support of GA EPD's April 11,
2003, submittal, the State provided a technical rationale intending to
show, based upon the allowable emission rate under Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(q), that increasing the cotton ginning ``permit by rule''
threshold of Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6 to 120,000 bales/year would still
ensure that source emissions would not exceed the major source
threshold.\4\ EPA notes, however, that an allowable emission rate alone
does not constrain a source's ``potential to emit,'' which is the
maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its
physical and operational design. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4) and 40
CFR 70.2. In addition, the emission rate that is allowable under Rule
391-3-1-.02(2)(q) changes according to a source's process rate (i.e.,
bales ginned per hour) at any particular time. Therefore, EPA's
evaluation of potential cotton ginning emissions is based upon the
Agency's review of available PM emission factors for cotton ginning
operations, in particular emission factors for PM10 and
PM2.5.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Email from Jimmy Johnston, GA EPD, to Stacey Harder, EPA
Region 4, May 30, 2007.
    \5\ Since at least 1995, EPA has considered the regulated form
of PM for title V purposes to be particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers, or
PM10. See ``Definition of Regulated Pollutant for
Particulate Matter for Purposes of Title V,'' Lydia N. Wegman,
October 16, 1995, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/pmregdef.pdf. In 1997 EPA finalized new air
quality standards to regulate particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers, or
PM2.5. See 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). The definition of
``regulated air pollutant'' in 40 CFR 70.2 includes any pollutant
for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, including PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's Compilation of Air Emission Factors, AP-42, lists emission
factors for typical cotton ginning configurations \6\ of 0.82 pound of
PM10 per bale (for Configuration No. 1, gins with high-
efficiency cyclones on all exhaust streams) and 1.2 pounds of
PM10 per bale (for Configuration No. 2, gins with screened
drums or cages on the lint cleaners and a battery condenser). But these
are ``D'' and ``E''-rated factors, meaning reliability of the factors
is below average to poor. The AP-42 emission factors for cotton ginning
were last updated in 1996 and do not include emission factors for
PM2.5. EPA's 1998 ``Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for
Specific Source Categories'' (1998 PTE Guidance) \7\ suggested possible
prohibitory rule thresholds of 90,000 bales/year or 72,000 bales/year
(for gins similar to Configuration No. 1 and Configuration No. 2,
respectively). These numbers were derived by taking 90 percent (to
provide a 10 percent safety margin) of the 100 tons per year (tpy)
title V major source threshold and dividing by a ``worst case''
emission rate. The 90,000 bale/year and 72,000 bale/year thresholds
were based upon emission factors of 2.0 pounds of PM10 per
bale and 2.5 pounds of PM10 per bale, depending on the gin
configuration, and were considered ``very conservative (worse than the
typical `worst-case').''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Figure 9.7-1 of AP-42 shows a flow diagram of a typical
cotton-ginning process, which includes an unloading system, No. 1
dryer and cleaner, No. 2 dryer and cleaner, No. 1 lint cleaner, No.
2 lint cleaner, mote fan, battery condenser and bailing system,
master trash fan and overflow system.
    \7\ ``Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source
Categories,'' John S. Seitz, April 14, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that there is more recent preliminary data to consider
regarding cotton ginning emission factors. In an effort to develop PM
emission factors that are representative of actual cotton ginning
emissions, cotton gin associations across the U.S. funded a national
study that was conducted during the period 2008-2012 and utilized data
collection methodologies defined by EPA.\8\ Peer reviewed articles
published on the data gathered from the study suggest a PM10
emission factor of

close to 1.3 pounds per bale \9\ and a PM2.5 emission factor
of about 0.15 pound per bale \10\ for the most common cotton gin
configurations. Subsequently, an environmental scientist analyzed this
national study data in light of the 1996 AP-42 data and EPA's 2013
emission factor development procedures \11\ and developed a suggested
PM10 emission factor of 1.0 pound per bale and a suggested
PM2.5 emission factor of 0.10 pound per bale from typical
cotton ginning operations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Buser, M.D., Whitelock, D.P., Boykin, J.C., and Holt, G.A.,
Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions--Project
Plan, Journal of Cotton Science, 16: 105-116 (2012), available at
https://www.cotton.org/journal/2012-16/2/upload/JCS16-105.pdf.
    \9\ Boykin, J.C., Buser, M.D., Whitelock, D.P., and Holt, G.A.,
(multiple articles), Journal of Cotton Science, 18:173-182, 183-194,
195-206, 216-225, 248-257, 258-267, 300-308, and 338-347 (2014),
available at http://www.cotton.org/journal/2014-18/index.cfm.
    \10\ Boykin, J.C., Buser, M.D., Whitelock, D.P., and Holt, G.A.,
(several articles), Journal of Cotton Science, 17:309-319, 320-332,
333-345, 357-367, 391-401; 402-413, 447-456, 489-499; and 357-367
(2013), available at http://www.cotton.org/journal/2013-17/index.cfm.
    \11\ See generally Eastern Research Group, Inc., Recommended
Procedures for Development of Emissions Factors and Use of the
WebFIRE Database (No. EPA-453/D-13-001) (August 2013), available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efpac/procedures/procedures81213.pdf.
    \12\ See Thomas W. Moore, Proposed Updates for AP-42 Cotton Gin
Emission Factors, p. 82 table 27b, M.S. Thesis, Oklahoma State
University (May 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, GA EPD's March 14, 2003, submittal would change the
cotton ginning ``permit by rule'' threshold from 65,000 bales/year to
120,000 bales/year. The approach of EPA's 1998 PTE Guidance for
development of a ``permit by rule'' was to set thresholds that would
provide a 10 percent margin of safety from the 100 tpy Part 70 program
applicability criterion. Using Georgia's proposed cotton ginning
``permit by rule'' threshold of 120,000 bales/year, an emission factor
of 1.5 pounds per bale would result in maximum annual emissions of 90
tpy. According to AP-42, typical cotton gin emission factors for
PM10 fall into the range of 0.82 pound per bale to 1.2
pounds per bale, which results in estimated annual PM10
emissions of 49 tpy to 72 tpy from 120,000 bales ginned. And based upon
data from the national study, a typical cotton gin emission factor is
likely to be in the range of 1.0 pound per bale to 1.3 pounds per bale,
which would result in estimated annual PM10 emissions in the
range of 60 tpy to 78 tpy from 120,000 bales ginned. Thus, the level of
annual PM10 emissions from typical cotton ginning
operations, as suggested by emission factors from AP-42 and the
national study, provides a significant margin of safety from the 100
tpy Part 70 program threshold. Estimated PM2.5 emissions
would be much lower due to the significantly lower emission factor for
that size indicator of total PM. This analysis supports approval of GA
EPD's revision to its ``permit by rule'' threshold for cotton gins.
    EPA believes that GA EPD's revision to Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6
will not degrade air quality because it does not change the level of
pollutant emissions allowable for cotton ginning operations under the
SIP. The impact of the revision would be that cotton ginning operations
which process cotton in the range of 65,000 bales/year to 120,000
bales/year (i.e., from the current ``permit by rule'' threshold to the
new threshold) would now be able to choose to operate under a ``permit
by rule'' rather than a standard operating permit as long as such
sources maintain records of their production, in accordance with Rule
391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6(i)(I). In addition, all cotton ginning operations
in Georgia will still be required to comply with the State's existing
PM emission limit at Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(q), which remains unchanged
and requires compliance with a numerical limit on PM emissions based on
the number of bales ginned per hour. Further, EPA notes that there are
currently no PM nonattainment areas in the State of Georgia and that
cotton gins in the State are located primarily in areas which tend to
have ambient PM concentrations well below the PM NAAQS. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve this change to Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6
from GA EPD's April 11, 2003, submittal.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6--Cotton ginning
operations, effective March 26, 2003, which revises permitting
requirements for cotton ginning operations. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of the State of Georgia's
April 11, 2003 submittal. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
change to GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6--Cotton ginning operations.
EPA believes that the proposed change to the regulatory portion of the
SIP is consistent with section 110 of the CAA and meets the regulatory
requirements pertaining to SIPs. EPA also believes that the proposed
change is consistent with CAA section 110(l), which states that the
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any
other applicable requirement of the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using

practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 5, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-07899 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 26386-26387]
[DOCID:fr02jn09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI09-7-000]

Inside Passage Electric Cooperative; Notice of Declaration of
Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To
Intervene

May 26, 2009.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No.: DI09-7-000.
    c. Date Filed: April 16, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative.
    e. Name of Project: Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project will
be located on Gartina Creek, near the town of Hoonah on Chichagof
Island, Alaska, affecting T. 44 S, R. 65 E, secs. 2, 11, 34, and 35,
Copper River Meridian.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Peter A. Bibb, Operations, P.O. Box 210149,
12480 Mendenhall Loop Road, Auke Bay, AK 99821, telephone: (907) 789-
3196, ext. 30; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or E-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: June 26,
2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and/or interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. Any questions,
please contact the Secretary's Office. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing link.
    Please include the docket number (DI09-7-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Gartina Creek Hydropower
Project will include: (1) A 15-foot-high, 280-foot-long concrete-and-
rock-fill diversion dam; (2) a concrete intake structure and sluiceway,
and a 54-inch-diameter, 200-foot-long steel pipe penstock to the
powerhouse; (3) a two-level powerhouse, approximately 20-foot-long and
2-foot-wide, and 25-foot-high; (4) a 4-mile-long transmission line to
an interconnection near the Hoonah airport; (5) a tailrace emptying
into Gartina Creek; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
project will not be connected to an interstate grid, and will not
occupy any tribal or federal lands.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link, select ``Docket'' and follow the
instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of

the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12699 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P