[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81070-81071]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6440-010]

Lakeport Hydroelectric One, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 6440-010.
    c. Date Filed: August 30, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Lakeport Hydroelectric One, LLC (Lakeport).
    e. Name of Project: Lakeport Hydroelectric Project (project).
    f. Location: On the Winnipesaukee River in Laconia, Belknap County,
New Hampshire.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Jody Smet, Lakeport Hydroelectric One,
LLC c/o Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC; 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite
1100W; Bethesda, MD 20814;<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Erin Kimsey,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
All filings must clearly identify the project name and docket number on
the first page: Lakeport Hydroelectric Project (P-6440-010).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final rule on
April 20, 2022, revising the regulations under 40 CFR parts 1502, 1507,
and 1508 that Federal agencies use to implement the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (see National Environmental Policy Act
Implementing Regulations Revisions, 87 FR 23453-70). The final rule
became effective on May 20, 2022. Commission staff intends to conduct
its NEPA review in accordance with CEQ's new regulations.
    l. The Lakeport Hydroelectric Project consists of the following
existing facilities: (1) a 359-foot-long, 12.34-foot-high concrete
gravity dam that includes the following sections: (a) a 60-foot-long
west abutment section; (b) a 78-foot-long, 4-foot high section topped
with three 10-foot-high, 18-foot-wide slide gates with a crest
elevation of 505.31 feet \1\ at the top of the slide gates; (c) an
approximately 15 foot-long overflow section topped with 6-inch-high
flashboards with a crest elevation of 504.7 feet at the top of the
flashboards; (d) an approximately 21-foot-long, 10-foot-wide center
pier topped with 6-inch-high flashboards with a crest elevation of
504.7 feet at the top of the flashboards; (e) a 25-foot-long, 12.33-
foot-high stoplog section; (f) a 44-foot-long, 42.17-foot-wide concrete
section that is integral with the dam and that contains three 200-kW
vertical submersible Flygt turbine-generator units located on outdoor
concrete pilings for a total installed capacity of 600 kW and (g) an
approximately 116-foot-long east abutment section that extends
upstream; (2) a 220-foot-long stone training wall that extends
downstream; (3) an impoundment (Lake Winnipesaukee) with a surface area
of approximately 46,208 acres and a storage capacity of 165,800 acre-
feet at an elevation of 504.32 feet; (4) a 2,800-square-foot forebay
area; (5) a 44-foot-wide, 13-foot-high concrete and granite intake
structure that is equipped with three 6-foot-diameter cylindrical
headgates and a trashrack with 0.75-inch clear bar spacing; (6) a 23-
foot-long, 30.5-foot-wide concrete and lumber control building adjacent
to the turbine-generator units; (7) an 80-foot-long, 50-foot-wide
tailrace that discharges into the Winnipesaukee River; (8) a downstream
fish passage facility that consists of a collection box and a 70-foot-
long, 10-inch-diameter PVC pipe; (9) three 30- to 55-foot-long, 0.48-
kilovolt (kV) generator leads, three 0.48/12.4-kV step-up transformers
at a substation adjacent to the control building that connect the
project to the local utility distribution system; and (10) appurtenant
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Elevation data are presented using the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (New
Hampshire DES) owns the dam and the land occupied by the project.
Lakeport leases the project land and dam from the NHDES, and operates
the project in accordance with NHDES's management objectives. Lake
Winnipesaukee is managed under the following schedule: Beginning on
January 1, the lake is

drawn down from 503.50 to 502.32 feet by the first week of March. Then,
the lake is refilled to between 504.10 and 504.32 feet by June 1. From
June 1 to Columbus Day, the lake elevation is maintained between 502.80
and 504.32 feet for summer recreation. From Columbus Day through
December 31, the lake elevation is maintained between 503.00 and 503.50
feet for shoreline maintenance. A year-round minimum flow of 200 cubic
feet per second (cfs) or greater is provided from the spillway or the
powerhouse to the Winnipesaukee River.
    The applicant is not proposing any changes to the project
facilities or project operation.
    m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST,'' ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;''
(2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project
number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the
name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the
filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each
filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on
the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related
to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
    o. The applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date
of issuance of this notice: (1) a copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification. Please note
that the certification request must comply with 40 CFR 121.5(b),
including documentation that a pre-filing meeting request was submitted
to the certifying authority at least 30 days prior to submitting the
certification request. Please also note that the certification request
must be sent to the certifying authority and to the Commission
concurrently.
    p. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of Comments, Recommendations, Terms  January 2024.
 and Conditions, and Prescriptions.
Filing of Reply Comments..................  February 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    q. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 14, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25673 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31102-31104]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0192]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, Louisville, KY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a special local
regulation for all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker
(MM) 597.0 to MM 607.0. This action is necessary to provide for the
safety of life on these navigable waters near Louisville, KY, during
Thunder over Louisville. Entry into, transiting through, or anchoring
within this regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0192 using the Federal eRulemaking 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: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email MST2 Craig Colton, Waterways
Department Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 502-779-
5335, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 17, 2020, the Coast Guard was notified of a delay to the
Thunder Over Louisville Marine Event originally scheduled for April 17,
2020 through April 19, 2020. The event has been postponed until August
14, 2020 through August 16, 2020 and will take place on the Ohio River,
between Mile Marker (MM) 597.0 to MM 607.0 The Captain of the Port
Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the Thunder Over Louisville airshow and fireworks
display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 10 mile stretch
of the Ohio River.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within the ten mile stretch of the Ohio River
before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a special local regulation that
will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 14, 2020, from 12
p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on August 15, 2020, and from 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. on
August 16, 2020. The special local regulation would cover all navigable
waters of the Ohio River from MM 597.0 to MM 607.0. The duration of the
special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of waterway
users and these navigable waters before, during, and after the
scheduled event. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the special
local regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and

benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs
through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
Entry into the regulated area will be prohibited from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
on August 14, 2020, from 12 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on August 15, 2020, and
from 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. on August 16, 2020 from Ohio River MM 597.0 to
MM 607.0, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) or a designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard
will issue written Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the temporary special local
regulation that is in place.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special
local regulation area lasting 21 hours over three days on all navigable
waters extending ten miles of the Ohio River. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and 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 NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T08-0192 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T08-0192  Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, Louisville,
KY.

    (a) Regulated area. All navigable waters of the Ohio River from
mile marker (MM) 597.0 to MM 607.0 in Louisville, KY.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 11 a.m.
to 6 p.m. on August 14, 2020, from 12 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on August 15,
2020, and from 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. on August 16, 2020. The Captain of the
Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative will
inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the
enforcement period for the special local regulation.
    (c) Special local regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  100 of this
part, entry into this area is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP
or a designated representative.
    (2) Recreational vessels may be permitted to transit the regulated
area, but are restricted to the Indiana side of the navigation channel.
There shall be no anchoring or loitering in the navigation channel.
There is a no-entry zone starting at Ohio River MM 602.7 through MM
607.0. Recreational vessels transiting into and away from this area are
restricted to the slowest safe speed creating minimum wake.
    (3) The COTP may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel
at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or
property.
    (4) All other persons or vessels desiring entry into or passage
through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on
VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.

    Dated: April 23, 2020.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2020-10633 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57055]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 16, 801, 803, 806, 810, 814, 820, 821, 822, and 830

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0090]
RIN 0910-AG31

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Unique Device Identification System; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the
comment period pertaining to information collection issues under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) associated with the proposed
rule, Unique Device Identification System, that appeared in the Federal
Register of July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40736). The Agency is taking this
action in response to requests for an extension to allow interested
persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed
collection of information by October 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) at FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please mark your comment to the FDA desk
officer and reference this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Crowley, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40736), FDA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking with a 60-day comment period
concerning the proposed information collection. Comments on the
proposed rulemaking will inform FDA's rulemaking to establish
regulations for Unique Device Identification System.
    The Agency has received requests for a 45-day extension of the
comment period for the information collection. Each request conveyed
concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow
sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the
information collection.
    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period
for the information collection for 45 days, until October 25, 2012. The
Agency believes that a 45-day extension allows adequate time for
interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying
rulemaking on these important issues.

    Dated: September 12, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-22821 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


TO:  ASTM E06.54 Members and All Other Interested Parties
FROM:  Bob Ferguson
DATE:  January 6, 2020
RE:  December 17, 2019 Teleconference Call Report - ASTM E2515 and ASTM E3053 Task Groups

Task Group teleconferences for both ASTM E2515 and E3053 Task Groups were held via WEBEX on December 17, 2019.  These task groups are addressing possible revisions/updates to these two ASTM standard test methods.  Once again, the calls were combined for convenience of the participants.  Future calls will operate separately and may or may not on occur in the same consecutive fashion.  That will be determined by the task group participants.
There was a brief discussion about the ASTM Collaboration Areas.  Bob Ferguson will send out an inquiry to all interested parties to determine who is interested in having access to the CA's.  Please return the information to Bob as soon as possible. These will be established soon, and non-ASTM members who have indicated they want access will receive an e-mail invitation.
The attendees list was confirmed and is included with this report.  I have added columns indicating ASTM membership status and whether I have received a request for access to the CA's.  Please point out any errors or omissions.
ASTM E2515:  Standard Test Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution Tunnel

Bob Ferguson opened the discussion on items previously identified as requiring the attention of the task group.  These are being addressed in the order they appear in the test method except when topics are intermingled between various sections.

 Sample Flow (and Filter Size)
 Currently, ASTM E2515 specifies the use of 47 mm filters only.  That restricts the maximum sample flow rate (based on not exceeding filter face velocity guidelines). Allowing only one filter size was done to eliminate differences in filter trains between labs and to try to minimize the added uncertainty associated with the additional weighings that are needed when solvent recovery is used instead of direct component weight determinations.  However, EPA already allows other filter sizes.  And, bigger filters do allow higher sample flow rates.  This may become important as sample catches decrease with cleaner burning appliances and as dilution tunnel flow rates increase.  This issue and its associated elements will require careful consideration by the group, including full understanding of the impact on variability in test results.
 Dryer Exit Temperature
 It was proposed to lower the Dryer exit temperature from the currently specified 80°F to 68°F for consistency with other test methods (including EPA Method 5).  There was some concern expressed when testing on hot days (that the lower temperature would require air conditioning).  And, since the dry gas meter temperature is recorded and used to correct sample flow to standard conditions, the question is  -  what is the real impact, if any? Data was requested to see how often the dryer exit temperature exceeds 68°F during a range of test facility conditions.  The current EPA requirement to maintain the filter temperature between 80 and 90°F (for room heater cordwood testing) was also raised during the discussion in terms of impact on dryer outlet temperature. Again, data would be helpful.

 Filter Material and Filter Size (See earlier Sample Flow discussion)
 There was a discussion about switching the current glass fiber filter material requirement to PTFE-bonded borosilicate glass fiber material.  This is currently an EPA-imposed requirement when testing room heaters using the ASTM cordwood test method.  A question of equivalency (i.e.., is it changing the PM we are catching?) was raised by Bob Ferguson in the context of supporting the rationale for changing material after decades of testing with glass fiber filters.  No comparison data has been published that he is aware of.  If that data is published, it should be made available to the TG.  One of the reasons given by Stef Johnson for the switch is to minimize the loss of filter material due to sticking.  That may be adequate justification by itself.  Russ McBrien and Sebastian Button supported switching since they are already using the EPA specified PTFE-bonded filters.  Text to be revised is shown below.
                  7.1.1 Filters -- Glass fiber filters PTFE-bonded borosilicate glass fiber filters with a diameter of 47 mm
                  without organic binder, exhibiting at least 99.95 % efficiency
            (<0.05 % penetration) on 0.3-micron dioctyl phthalate smoke
            particles in accordance with Practice D2986. Manufacturer's
            quality control test data are sufficient for validation of efficiency. 8

            8 Gelman A/E 61631 and Whatman 1841-047 filters have been found acceptable
                  for this purpose. Pall Type Pallflex EMFAB TX40HI20 WW filters have been found acceptable for this purpose.
                  If you are aware of alternative suppliers, please provide this
            information to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive
            careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee,1 which
            you may attend.

 Dilution Tunnel Flow Determination and Limits
 There was some initial discussion regarding dilution tunnel flow rates and specifically on the impact on condensation in the filter holders, especially under some cordwood testing conditions.  A lot of moisture is generated during cold starts and the initial portion of high fire testing.  Moisture condensation has been observed, even when filter temperatures are maintained at the EPA specified range of 80-90°F.  Current E2515 wording limits the maximum tunnel flow to five times the minimum flow required to capture all smoke exiting the appliance.   Increasing the tunnel flowrate above that current limit can help mitigate condensation issues.  However, increasing tunnel flow rate also reduces PM concentration and therefore, PM filter catch.  Maximizing sample flow rates can offset some of the impact but filter catch impacts on uncertainty will continue as tested products become cleaner and cleaner.  Bob Ferguson raised the idea that at some point there will have to be a lower detectable limit as there are with many other measurements.  Rick Curkeet discussed ways to reduce the chance of condensation including lowering lab humidity during high humidity periods or increasing the allowable filter temperature. All the inter-relationships between parameters need full consideration in order to avoid unintended consequences.  Bob Ferguson asked for help in locating a study on the impacts that dilution tunnel flow rates have on PM capture that was conducted many years ago by Dr. Houck while he was at OMNI.  Efforts to locate the paper have been unsuccessful so far.

 Pitot Tube Leak Testing
 This equipment issue (which digital manometers may remedy) was raised by Ben Myren and will be discussed in a future call.

 Proportional Rate
 EPA has tightened the requirements for maintaining proportionality between tunnel flow and sample flow.  Current E2515 requires that no more than 10% of PR values can be outside the 90-100% range and none outside 80-120%.  EPA room heater cordwood testing requirements allow only one value to be outside the 90-110% range.  Gaétan Piedalue expressed concern about how difficult this can be when cold starts are included in the testing or when the load door is open during testing.  A request for data was made (i.e., data on PR values and how often the PR value is outside these ranges).  It should be relatively easy to look at datasets and track the variations in PR.  Stef Johnson asked that anyone with concerns or information on this matter contact him directly.

These topics will remain active as we start to consider other identified issues in future meetings including (but not limited to):

 Filter Temperature (discussed briefly in terms of condensation)
 Filter and Probe Desiccation
 Filter and Probe Weighing
 Sample Train Leak Testing When Filter Changes are Required or Needed
 How Low Filter Catches are Currently Addressed
 Test Method Precision
 Tunnel Temp/RH/Dew Point
 Condensation in Filter Trains
 Low Filter Catch / Lower Detectable Limit
 TEOM

   The date and time for the next call two calls was discussed.  The decision was to continue to hold the calls in conjunction with the E3053 calls but with a 30-minute break between sessions.

   The next call will be on January 28[th] at 1:30 PM EST.  The February call will be on February 18[th], again at 1:30 PM ET.  Please put these on your calendars.

   There will also be a face-to-face meeting at the HPBA EXPO in New Orleans.  This meeting will be on Tuesday, March 10[th].  The meeting will be held later in the afternoon to allow folks to arrive on the same day.  The specifics (time and location) will be provided as soon as they are finalized.  Call-in details will also be provided for those that can't be there in person.

   At 3:00 PM EST the E2515 portion of call was adjourned.

   ASTM E3053:  Standard Test Method for Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters Using Cordwood Test Fuel

   Discussion began on the topics/Issues identified so far.

       Manufacturer's Written Instructions/Owner's Manual
             The initial question is whether the current E3053 language specific enough.  Are limits needed should on what can be done?  Is more specificity needed on how the manufacturer's written instruction to the labs for test purposes must be tied to owner's manuals?  Russ McBrien from Travis felt that non-cat tube stoves, cat stoves and hybrid stoves all need good instructions-that are followed-to achieve repeatable results. He feels that all cat stoves are pretty forgiving regarding how you load the fuel load, but that loading instructions are critical to success of tube stoves.   He suggested making stricter requirements on manufacturers for what's in the owner's manual. Right now, there are examples of a lack of connection between test instructions given to the lab and owner's manual language where instructions are too general and not detailed enough to reflect optimum fuel loading.  Bob Ferguson suggested that the intent has always been that the owner's manual should give instructions to the user for optimizing performance. But it's more of a regulatory issue since it can require judgment and therefore, an ultimate decision maker. Perhaps better EPA guidelines for the labs and for owner's manual content are needed as a starting point.  Stef Johnson has recently had discussions with test labs about some manufacturer specified fuel loading procedures.   From his perspective, it comes down to reasonableness. That is, are instructions in owners' manual reasonable?  If the consumer is likely to operate the stove as instructed in the manual, then that's fine.  But if the instructions that go to lab are not the way a typical consumer is likely to do it, then that doesn't pass sniff test. An example is that shaving bark off is something consumers would not typically do. Bob Ferguson opined that "reasonable" is a really squishy term.  Stef agreed. Bob suggested coming up with a list of what's not reasonable as a beginning point for future discussion

       Overall Test Method Concept
          Current E3053 requirements include low, medium, high fire test runs with PM measured for each discreet run.   In one day, it is possible to conduct a high fire test run (including cold start) followed by a low or medium fire test run, but not all three.  A medium is not allowed to be run prior to a low fire test due to the current requirements for running a high fire cycle to establish a charcoal bed before the test run.  This means that E3053 typically can be done in two days (High and Low on Day 1, High and Medium on Day 2).  At the time, E3053 needed to bridge the gap between M28 (crib) and E2780 (crib with cordwood annex). There was strong resistance to moving too far away from the old test protocols and for continuing to determine PM emissions from individual burn rate/heat output categories, especially within the regulatory community and with some manufacturers. Now stakeholder attitudes have changed.  The Integrated Duty Cycle (IDC) test protocol, currently under development by for room heaters by NESCAUM/NYSERDA, is trying to achieve a single day test protocol with a single number emission rating that covers the full operating range of the tested heater. A one-day test should allow replicate testing at a reasonable cost.  Some variability can be mitigated by averaging the results from multiple tests.  Russ McBrien, in his written comment, wants the task group to consider what is a reasonable workday (not 10 to 20 hours).  Extra-long test days are a personnel and financial burden.  Any test method will need to demonstrate a high correlation between lab results and real-world emission performance. Now that E3053 is being widely used, the warts and shortcomings are being revealed.  This shouldn't be surprising.  This task Group's primary objective should be to move toward what is most predictive of real-world PM performance. Let's keep all options on the table until we can understand the best path forward.

       Pre-conditioning Requirements
 Bob Ferguson raised the issue that the current E3053 doesn't specify how to determine that 50 hours of preconditioning have been reached.  Flue gas temperature must be recorded but there is no lower cut-off.  It was mentioned that the reality is that the 50 hours is a formality because these test stoves have been operated extensively prior to certification testing and will have accumulated far more than 50 hours of operation.  It was suggested that the group leave this matter alone for now, as there are more pressing issues.

       Test Fuel Load Requirements
          There was limited discussion on this topic due to time constraints.  There was discussion about kindling moisture and the current wording in E3053.  Rick Curkeet mentioned the existence of research regarding woody material drying time (e.g., grass takes ~1 hour to dry, while wood plants can take 24 to 60 hours) and how guidelines might be developed for drying kindling, in lieu of measurements. Ben Myren said his objective was to reduce variability by requiring everyone do fuel-related procedures the same way, including piece size and moisture determination.  There is some sense that the current wording in this section allows too much flexibility.  This issue will likely consume significant TG time as we move forward.

These topics will remain active as we start to consider other identified issues in future meetings including (but not limited to):

       Test Fuel Properties
       Test Requirements
       Equations

   The next call will be on January 28[th] at 3:00 PM EST.  The February call will be on February 18[th], again at 3:00 PM ET.  Please put these on your calendars.

   E3053 will be on the agenda at the March 10[th] meeting at the HPBA EXPO in New Orleans.