[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 10502]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-26-000]

MATL LLP; Montana Alberta Tie, Ltd; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on February 13, 2012, MATL LLP (MATL) and Montana
Alberta Tie Ltd (Montana Alberta Tie) (collectively, Applicants), filed
a Petition for Declaratory Order, requesting that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) confirm that MATL will continue to
have negotiated rate authority following the completion of a
transaction under which Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge) has become the new
ultimate owner of Applicants.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 14, 2012.

    Dated: February 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4015 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


NOTES:  1) Page num. sequenced so that prints correctly double-sided. 2) This is version 1 of 9 survey versions varying Q2-Q5 (see supp. statement part b). 3) Final flow lengths & forest acreages (pg. 8) may change based on natural science modeling updates.
Thank you for your participation in this important survey!
Please write any comments you may have on this survey below.
OMB Control No. 2090-0028                      Approval expires 6/30/2015

Photos showing the Santa Cruz River where there is flow, and where there is no flow.  Open this survey to learn more and to submit your opinion on Santa Cruz River management.
                                   Survey:
                           Your Opinion Needed on an
                              Arizona River Issue
                                                                                Question 14: 	What year were you born?   19__ __
Question 15: 	Are you male or female?       O  Male	           O  Female
Question 16:  What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
O  Less than high school  		O  One or more years of college
O  High school or equivalent  	O  Bachelor's Degree
O  High school + technical school  	O  Graduate Degree

Question 17: 	How many people live in your household? _________
Question 18: 	How many of those people are 18 or older? __________
Question 19: 	Are you and/or your spouse currently employed?    O  Yes	           O  No
Question 20: 	How many years have you lived in Arizona? _________
Question 21: 	Does anyone in your household belong to an environmental 	organization (such as Sierra Club, or National Audubon Society)?
O  Yes	           O  No

Question 22:  From the following options, do you consider yourself to be:
O  American Indian	 		O  Latino/Hispanic
O  Asian				O  White
O  African American			O  Other ________________

Question 23:  What category comes closest to your total household income for 2012?
O  Less than $10,000  		O  $80,000 to $99,999
O  $10,000 to $19,999  		O  $100,000 to $149,999
O  $20,000 to $39,999  		O  $150,000 to $199,999
O  $40,000 to $59,999  		O  $200,000 to $249,999
O  $60,000 to $79,999		O  $250,000 or more

d

We need the following questions to ensure votes from all groups   have been fairly represented in this survey.
This survey asks for your opinion on how to manage the Santa Cruz River. It is important for authorities to hear from all perspectives, so please take the time to read the background and answer the questions. Your responses will help authorities select the best option. This survey is being sent to randomly selected households in southern Arizona.

The Santa Cruz River is in southern Arizona. It flows north through several communities such as Rio Rico, Tubac, Amado, Green Valley, Sahuarita, Tucson, and Marana. It also flows through Tumacácori National Park near the border with Mexico. The Santa Cruz joins the Gila River south of Phoenix which then joins the Colorado River at Yuma. People have lived in the Santa Cruz valley for thousands of years, and water was found in the Santa Cruz River in some places all-year. Pumping groundwater over the last 80 to 100 years lowered groundwater levels and dried up many of the wet areas along the river.

23
2
             THE SANTA CRUZ RIVER IN             SOUTHERN ARIZONA
   TREATED WASTEWATER IN                               THE SANTA CRUZ RIVER

Question 13: Rate the importance of different recreational activities for
your household along the Santa Cruz River or along its riverbanks

         Since the 1950's, treated wastewater has been released into the Santa Cruz River in two places, in the North near Tucson, and in the South near the border with Mexico. At first this was just a method of disposing of the treated wastewater. It was then found that the water is helping to provide wet river ecosystems, and associated plants and animals that are scarce in southern Arizona. The treatment is currently being upgraded to provide water of higher quality and to eliminate odor. Having wastewater of higher quality raises new questions about how to best manage the water.

d

                            Santa Cruz River Activity

     Not                   Somewhat                   Very
Important              Important                Important

Walking
    1              2              3              4              5
Biking
    1              2              3              4              5
Safe Partial Body Contact with Water (wading)
    1              2              3              4              5
Safe Full Body Contact with Water (submersion)
    1              2              3              4              5
Birdwatching
    1              2              3              4              5
Horseback Riding
    1              2              3              4              5
Off Road Vehicle Use
    1              2              3              4              5
Going to the river to see a large flow or flood
    1              2              3              4              5
Boating or Tubing
    1              2              3              4              5
Picnicking
    1              2              3              4              5
Other_______________________________________

    1              2              3              4              5

NORTH
Treated wastewater now supports about 23 miles of flow, and about 160 acres of forest along the river. The flow starts in NW Tucson near Prince Rd and I-10 and flows past Marana.

22

SOUTH
Treated wastewater now supports about 19 miles of flow, and about 490 acres of forest along the river. The flow starts in southern Rio Rico and flows past Tubac.

3
22

                          WHAT HAPPENS TO THE WATER?

Question 12:
   * In the last 12 months, what is the estimated total number of separate river-related recreational trips members of your household have taken?  For example, a trip that combined picknicking and birdwatching activities would count as a single trip.
	_____________ total trips in the last 12 months.

   * How many of those trips were within a 2 hour drive of your home?
            _____________ trips in the last 12 months.

   * How many of those trips were within your city or community?
            _____________ trips in the last 12 months.

   * How many of those trips involved any portion of the Santa Cruz River?
	_____________ trips in the last 12 months.

   * If there were any trips to the Santa Cruz River, what was the main recreational activity?  If this doesn't apply, just leave this blank.
	_______________________________________ was the main activity.

d

   * About 10% of the treated wastewater evaporates or is consumed by plants and animals. The remaining 90% is not lost to the watershed, but becomes groundwater.

   * Of the 10% consumed, most of it is used by trees. An acre of forest along the river requires about as much water as 44 people per year. An acre is almost the same size as a football field without the endzones.

21
10%

Evaporation, Plant Use, & Animal Use
4
To Groundwater

  90%

        WHAT DOES THE WATER MEAN                  FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?

Question 11:  In the last 12 months, how often have members of your household engaged in these recreation activities in any river, stream, canal, dry wash, or arroyo, or along its banks?
                            River-Related Activity

     Number of times in the last 12 months

Walking
                        ________  times
Biking
                        ________  times
Partial Body Contact with Water (wading)
                        ________  times
Full Body Contact with Water (submersion)
                        ________  times
Birdwatching
                        ________  times
Horseback Riding
                        ________  times
Off Road Vehicle Use
                        ________  times
Going to a river to see a large flow or flood
                        ________  times
Boating or Tubing
                        ________  times
Picnicking
                        ________  times
Other_______________________________________

                        ________  times

   * The constant release of treated wastewater supports a wet river ecosystem that used to be more common in southern Arizona.

   * If a river does not have water year-round there is still an ecosystem, just not a wet river ecosystem.

   * The wet river ecosystem along the Santa Cruz River includes cottonwood and willow trees, tall shade trees dependent on moist soil.  This is one of the rarest forest types in southern Arizona.

   * In the desert, wet river ecosystems contain a large concentration of plant and animal species. Along the wet areas of the Santa Cruz River, there is a variety of birds and small mammals, and minnow-sized fish have been found.

   * The San Pedro River near Sierra Vista and the Gila River near Safford are examples of other wet river ecosystems in southern Arizona. The ecosystems in those locations rely on natural water flow rather than release of treated wastewater.

5
20

              YOU WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS

   * FLOW & FOREST:  People can vote to maintain more miles of river flow and cottonwood and willow forest acres in the North and the South. This is in contrast to the Expected Future which cuts back flows and forest acreage. As stated on pg.3, the current condition is 23 flow miles and 160 forest acres in the North, and 19 flow miles and 490 forest acres in the South. Choosing Flow & Forest more than the Expected Future would mean an increase in taxes as compensation for not selling the water for off-river purposes.

                     .

   > Note that in the South, treated wastewater results in 4 to 5 times more forest per mile of flow. This is because adding treated wastewater in the South allows tree roots to reach the groundwater which is relatively close to the surface there. Trees in the South also tend to grow larger overall.

   > Refer to the photos on the next page to compare typical scenes of the North and South. Photos are also shown downstream of where water flows currently end.

   * EXPECTED FUTURE:   Within the next 10 years, the extent of river flow and the wet river ecosystem would be reduced from current condition to 12 flow miles and 45 forest acres in the North, and 10 miles and 250 forest acres in the South. There would still be trees, plants, birds, mammals, and minnow-sized fish in the North and South. This option does not require new taxpayer costs.

                     .

Within the next 10 years, river flows are predicted to be cut back due to increasing demands for water resources in southern Arizona. This survey will help managers know whether people would be willing to pay to keep various amounts of treated wastewater in the river instead. These funds would be used as compensation for not selling the water. Note that all options, including the no-cost option, maintain at least some wastewater in the river and include the recent wastewater treatment upgrades that increase water quality and eliminate odor. This survey will also help managers know whether people would be willing to pay for additional water quality measures that would allow full body contact recreation in the treated wastewater.

                     .

19
6
Question 9: If you voted for an option with more Flow & Forest than
"Expected Future", in Q2 to Q5, why?
CHOOSE ONE ANSWER THAT FITS BEST
O  NEVER CHOSE more Flow & Forest than Expected Future.
O  Prefer visible flow in the river
O  Prefer more vegetation along the river
O  Prefer both more flow and more vegetation along the river
O  I was forced to choose Flow & Forest in order to get Full Body Contact
O  Other reasons: ____________________________________

Question 10: If you voted for an option containing "Full Body Contact" in Q2 to
Q5, why?
CHOOSE ONE ANSWER THAT FITS BEST
O  NEVER CHOSE an option that included "Full Body Contact"
O  My household is interested in recreational contact with the treated water
O  I want other people to be able to recreationally contact the treated water
O  I was forced to choose Full Body Contact in order to get more Flow & Forest
O  Other reasons: ____________________________________

                        North Downstream of Water Flow

                        South Downstream of Water Flow

                             South With Water Flow

                             North With Water Flow

   > Photos show the changes that could happen in the North and South if a part of the river no longer receives treated wastewater.

7
Question 6:  Before reading this survey were you aware of the location of any part of the Santa Cruz River?
O  Yes
O  No

Question 7:  Before reading this survey were you aware that the Santa Cruz River has water all-year in the two places shown on page 3?
CHOOSE ONE ANSWER THAT FITS BEST
O  Aware of the water in the North
O  Aware of the water in the South
O  Aware of the water in both the North and the South
O  Not aware of the water in the North or the South

Question 8:  If you ever voted for "Expected Future" in Q2 to Q5, why?
CHOOSE ONE ANSWER THAT FITS BEST
O  NEVER CHOSE "Expected Future"
O  No ability to pay
O  Other options were not worth it to my household
O  Prefer to make a donation than to increase taxes
O  Don't think the other options are realistic
O  Other________________________

QUESTION 6
 If you ever chose an option that kept river flow and habitat, why? Choose the reason that is the best match
O  NEVER CHOSE Options B or C
O  Prefer visible flow in the river
O  Prefer to have more forest
O  Prefer higher habitat value
O  Other________________________

18

   Question 5.  Given a choice between Option A, Option B, or Expected Future for the Santa Cruz River, how would you vote?

Summary of North Flow and Forest Possibilities

Summary of South Flow and Forest Possibilities

                             Location & Effect

                                    Option A
                                    Option B

                               Expected Future

                                    North
                              Flow & Forest

                                 23 flow miles
                               160 forest acres
                                 23 flow miles
                               160 forest acres
                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                    North
                               Full Body Contact

                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      No

                                     South
                               Flow & Forest

                                10 flow miles
                               250 forest acres

                                 17 flow miles
                               95 forest acres
                                10 flow miles
                               250 forest acres

                                     South
                               Full Body Contact

                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      No

                                       $
                        Cost to your Household per Year

                                      $30
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $60
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $0
                         Increase in      Annual Taxes
                              HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?
                               (CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option A

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option B

                                     
                                   I prefer
                                Expected Future

17
8
8
    Question 4.  Given a choice between Option A, Option B, or Expected Future for the Santa Cruz River, how would you vote?

                             Location & Effect

                                    Option A
                                    Option B

                               Expected Future

                                    North
                              Flow & Forest

                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                 17 flow miles
                               95 forest acres
                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                    North
                               Full Body Contact

                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      No

                                     South
                               Flow & Forest

                                 19 flow miles
                               490 forest acres
                                10 flow miles
                               250 forest acres

                                10 flow miles
                               250 forest acres

                                     South
                               Full Body Contact

                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                      No

                                       $
                        Cost to your Household per Year

                                      $40
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $50
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $0
                         Increase in      Annual Taxes
                  HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?       (CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option A

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option B

                                     
                                   I prefer
                                Expected Future

This concludes the description of the options. Different options for "Flow and

Forest" and "Full Body Contact" are possible for the North and South. You will

have an opportunity to vote on different options, including "Expected Future".
   * FULL BODY CONTACT:  During stormflows, the water quality is not considered safe for any type of human contact. However, during low-flow times the water in the North and South is currently considered safe for wading. Water quality could be improved to be considered safe for full body contact such as submersion during low-flow times. This would require further measures to control bacteria, which would mean an increase in taxes to pay for these measures.

16
9

                             Location & Effect

                                    Option A
                                    Option B

                               Expected Future

                                    North
                              Flow & Forest

                                 17 flow miles
                               95 forest acres

                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                    North
                               Full Body Contact

                                      Yes
                                      No
                                      No

                                     South
                               Flow & Forest

                                 15 flow miles
                               385 forest acres
                                10 flow miles
                               250 forest acres

                                10 flow miles
                               250 forest acres

                                     South
                               Full Body Contact

                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                      No

                                       $
                        Cost to your Household per Year

                                      $40
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $20
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $0
                         Increase in      Annual Taxes
                              HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?
                               (CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option A

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option B

                                     
                                   I prefer
                                Expected Future

                             Location & Effect

                                    Option A
                                    Option B

                               Expected Future

                                    North
                              Flow & Forest

                                 23 flow miles
                               160 forest acres
                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                    North
                               Full Body Contact

                                      Yes
                                      No
                                      No

                                     South
                               Flow & Forest

                                 19 flow miles
                              490 forest acres
                                 19 flow miles
                              490 forest acres

                                10 flow miles
                               250 forest acres

                                     South
                               Full Body Contact

                                      Yes
                                      No
                                      No

                                       $
                        Cost to your Household per Year

                                      $60
                                 Increase in

Annual Taxes                                      $40
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $0
                         Increase in      Annual Taxes
                              HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?
                               (CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option A

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option B

                                     
                                   I prefer
                                Expected Future

EXAMPLE VOTE                                  questions will look like the sample below

                                If you prefer
                                   Option A,
                                  check here

                                If you prefer
                                   Option B,
                                  check here

                                If you prefer
                               Expected Future,
                                  check here

15
   Question 3.  Given a choice between Option A, Option B, or Expected Future for the Santa Cruz River, how would you vote?

10

            THIS SURVEY IS SIMILAR TO                 A PUBLIC VOTE

   Question 2.  Given a choice between Option A, Option B, or Expected Future for the Santa Cruz River, how would you vote?

11
14

The questions starting on the next page ask you how you would vote for different options for the Santa Cruz River.

Effects of each Option will be described with the following information:

                             Location & Effect

                                    Option A
                                    Option B

                               Expected Future

                                    North
                              Flow & Forest

                                 23 flow miles
                               160 forest acres
                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                 12 flow miles
                               45 forest acres

                                    North
                               Full Body Contact

                                      Yes
                                      No
                                      No

                                     South
                               Flow & Forest

                                 19 flow miles
                              490 forest acres
                                 19 flow miles
                              490 forest acres

                                10 flow miles
                               250 forest acres

                                     South
                               Full Body Contact

                                      Yes
                                      No
                                      No

                                       $
                        Cost to your Household per Year

                                      $60
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $40
                                 Increase in
                                 Annual Taxes
                                      $0
                         Increase in      Annual Taxes
                              HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?
                               (CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option A

                                     
                                  I vote for
                                   Option B

                                     
                                   I prefer
                                Expected Future

                             Location & Effect

Description

                                    North
                               Flow & Forest

Approximate Miles of year-round flow; &
Approximate Acres of cottonwood/willow forest along the river, tall shade trees dependent on wet soils.

                                    North
                               Full Body Contact

Yes it is safe for full body contact at low-flow times, or No, it is only safe for wading at low-flow times.

                                     South
                              Flow & Forest

Approximate Miles of year-round flow; &
Approximate Acres of cottonwood/willow forest along the river, tall shade trees dependent on wet soils.

                                    South
                               Full Body Contact

Yes it is safe for full body contact at low-flow times, or No, it is only safe for wading at low-flow times.

                                       $
                        Cost to your Household per Year

How much the option will cost your household in unavoidable taxes per year. These taxes would not increase or decrease over time.

                             Location & Effect

     Not                           Somewhat                         Very
Important                      Important                     Important

                                    North
                              Flow & Forest

         1              2              3              4               5
                                    North
                               Full Body Contact

         1              2              3              4               5
                                    South
                              Flow & Forest

         1              2              3              4               5
                                    South
                               Full Body Contact

         1              2              3              4               5
                                       $
                        Cost to your Household per Year

         1              2              3              4               5
Question 1.  Rate each of the following in terms of their importance to your household.  For each, use "1" for the least important, and "5" for the most important.

              HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE EFFECTS?

                 AS YOU VOTE, REMEMBER THESE IMPORTANT DETAILS

   +      There are 4 voting questions, each on a different page.

   +      Each question describes alternative choices to help us better understand your household's opinion.

   +      Review each question carefully.  Your votes are important and will help determine the best option for the Santa Cruz River.

   +      Costs to your household will range from $0 to $60 per year, depending on the option.  All funds are legally guaranteed to be used for the designated purpose.

   +      The "Expected Future" option shows the expected future at no added cost. Choose this if other options are not worth it to your household.

13
12


[Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 10015-10016]
[DOCID:fr25fe08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12950-000]

Toad Suck Ferry Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

February 19, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12950-000.
    c. Date Filed: August 14, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Toad Suck Ferry Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Toad Suck Ferry Lock and Dam Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: Arkansas River in Faulkner County, Arkansas. It would
use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Toad Suck Ferry Lock and Dam.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for Filing Comments, Protests, and Motions To
Intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12950-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in 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. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Toad Suck Ferry Lock and Dam and operated in a run-
of-river mode would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse and switchyard;
(2) four turbine/generator units with a combined installed capacity of
80 megawatts; (3) a new 1.4-mile-long above ground 69-kilovolt
transmission line extending from the switchyard to an interconnection
point with the local utility's distribution system; and (4) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed Toad Suck Ferry Lock and Dam Project would
have an average annual generation of 240 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. 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.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. 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.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3437 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40740-40741]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0737; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-12]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Twin Bridges, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 and 1,200 feet above the surface, at Twin Bridges
Airport, Twin Bridges, MT, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV)
procedures at the airport. This action would ensure the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the
National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0737; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-12, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace to support

new RNAV procedures at Twin Bridges Airport, Twin Bridges, MT.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0737;
Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-12''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Twin Bridges Airport, Twin
Bridges, MT, within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport and within 4.1
miles each side of the 011[deg] bearing from the airport extending to
12 miles north of the airport, and within 4.1 miles each side of the
195[deg] bearing from the airport extending to 13.5 miles south of the
airport.
    Additionally, this proposal would establish Class E airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 20-mile
radius of Twin Bridges Airport This proposed airspace is necessary to
support the new RNAV procedures for runways 17 and 35 for the safety
and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Twin Bridges, MT [New]

Twin Bridges Airport, MT
(Lat. 45[deg]32'07'' N., long. 112[deg]18'08'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.1 mile radius of Twin Bridges Airport, and within 4.1
miles each side of the 011[deg] bearing from the airport extending
to 12 miles north of the airport, and within 4.1 miles each side of
the 195[deg] bearing from the airport extending to 13.5 miles south
of the airport; and that airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface within a 20-mile radius of Twin Bridges Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 16, 2017.
David G. Parker,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-17988 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 85)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23957-23959]
[DOCID:fr01my08-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532-200810, FRL-8560-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Alabama
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Alabama on
June 16, 2006. The SIP revisions modify Alabama's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD regulations in the Alabama SIP to
address changes to the federal New Source Review (NSR) regulations,
which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered
with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (commonly referred to as the
``2002 NSR Reform Rules''). EPA proposed approval of these revisions on
January 24, 2008; no comments were received on that proposal. The
revisions include provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an
actual-to-projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions
changes, options for plantwide applicability limits, and recordkeeping
and reporting requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective June 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Alabama
State Implementation Plan, contact Ms. Stacy Harder, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding New Source Review,
contact Ms. Gracy R. Danois, Air Permits Section, at the same address
above. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Danois can also be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Alabama SIP,
which includes changes to Alabama's NSR program. On June 16, 2006, the
State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) submitted revisions to the Alabama SIP. Specifically,
the SIP revisions include changes to ADEM Administrative Code (AAC)
Division 3 (Air Division), Chapter 14, entitled ``Air Permits.'' ADEM
submitted these revisions in response to EPA's December 31, 2002,
revisions to the federal NSR program. EPA is now approving these SIP
revisions with the exception of the requirements found in Rule 335-3-
14-.04(2)(w)1, the portion of the definition of ``significant'' that
establishes a significance threshold of 100 tons for all NSR regulated
pollutants for which there is not a listed significant amount. On
December 3, 2007, Alabama requested this portion of the definition not
be approved in to the SIP. Notably, the June 16, 2006, submittal also
addressed the Clean Air Interstate Rule which EPA has already addressed
in a separate action (October 1, 2007, 72 FR 55659).
    On January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4133), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register, proposing to approve
the Alabama SIP revisions regarding its NSR program. The January 24,
2008, NPR provides additional information about the proposed Alabama
SIP revisions and the rationale for this final action. The public
comment period for the proposed action ended on February 25, 2008. No
comments were received on EPA's proposed action. EPA is now taking
final action to approve the SIP revisions submitted by ADEM on June 16,
2006.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52,
regarding the Clean Air Act (CAA), PSD and NNSR programs. On November
7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action on its
reconsideration of the 2002 rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA
took final action to revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to exclude the
clean units and Pollution Control Project (PCP) provisions that were
vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) on June 24, 2005. The purpose of
this action regarding the Alabama SIP is to approve the SIP submittal
from the State of Alabama incorporating rule changes consistent with
EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
    The June 24, 2005, DC Circuit Court decision also involved a remand
of the recordkeeping provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On
December 14, 2007, EPA issued a final rulemaking in response to the DC
Circuit's remand establishing that ``reasonable possibility'' applies
where source

emissions equal or exceed 50% of the CAA NSR significance levels for
any pollutant. The rule was published in the Federal Register on
December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72607). For further information, see, http://
www.epa.gov/nsr.
    The ``reasonable possibility'' standard identifies, for sources and
reviewing authorities, the circumstances under which a major stationary
source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must
keep records. Alabama's SIP revisions are approvable at this time
because the Alabama rules are substantially the same as the current
federal rules and EPA's interpretation of the reasonable possibility
standard did not result in any actual changes to the corresponding
federal rule.
    As is discussed in greater detail in the NPR, EPA reviewed the SIP
revisions and determined that they were at least as stringent as the
federal NSR program. Therefore, Alabama's revisions are consistent with
the federal NSR regulations published December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186)
and November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), with the one exception noted
earlier regarding AAC Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w)1 which is no longer a
part of the current SIP submittal. As a result, the SIP revisions are
approvable pursuant to the CAA.
    The January 24, 2008, NPR and the docket for this action provide
more details about the SIP revisions being approved and the rationale
for EPA's final action. For additional information on EPA's 2002 NSR
Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and http://
www.epa.gov/nsr.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve changes to Alabama's Rule
335-3-14-.04, with the exception of 335-3-14.04(2)(w)1, as submitted by
ADEM on June 16, 2006, as revisions to the Alabama SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This final rule also does not have tribal implications because it
will 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, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely approves state and local rules implementing a Federal standard,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 30, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See, section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 17, 2008.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(c) is amended by revising the entry for ``Section 335-
3-14.04'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     State
           State citation                   Title/subject       effective date           EPA approval date                       Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Chapter 335-3-14 Air Permits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 335-3-14-.04................  Air Permits Authorizing       07/11/2006  05/01/2008 [Insert citation of       EPA is not approving Section 335-3-
                                       Construction in Clean                     publication].                        14.04(2)(w)1.
                                       Air Areas (Prevention
                                       of Significant
                                       Deterioration (PSD)).

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-9481 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 15857]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3395-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Florida (FEMA-3395-EM), dated October 8, 2017, and related
determinations.

DATES: The amendment was issued on April 2, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Allan Jarvis,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of Willie G. Nunn as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-07598 Filed 4-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 69752-69753]
[DOCID:fr17no05-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

November 9, 2005.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER05-554-003.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp reports that on 10/14/05 it paid $26,929 to
Warms Springs Power Enterprises in compliance with FERC's 8/25/05
Order.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 25 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-150-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits its Third Revised Rate
Schedule No. 24 and Sixth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0285
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 23, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-151-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to the PJM
FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Rate Schedule No. 24 & Sixth
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0255.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 23, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-152-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corp submits a revised
Market-Base Rate Tariff designated as FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume No. 10.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0209.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 25, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-153-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf AEP
Texas Central Company submits a restated and amended interconnection
agreement dated 11/29/99.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 25, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-154-000; ER05-1307-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Co submits a Compliance Filing of
Second Revised Sheet No. 121 to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised
Volume No. 4.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 25, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-155-000.
    Applicants: Walton Electric Membership Corporation.
    Description: Walton Electric Membership Corp informs FERC it is no
longer a public utility subject to jurisdiction pursuant to section
201(f) of the Federal Power Act and no longer is required to file
reports effective 8/8/05.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 23, 2005.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other and the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6334 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31254-31255]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10381]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2715-026]

Kaukauna Utilities; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-2715-026.
    c. Date filed: July 22, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Kaukauna Utilities (Kaukauna).
    e. Name of Project: Combined Locks Hydroelectric Project (Combined
Locks Project or project).
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Lower Fox River
in the Village of Combined Locks and the Village of Little Chute,
Outagamie County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Zachary Moureau, Environmental & Compliance Manager, Kaukauna
Utilities, 777 Island Street, Kaukauna, WI 54130-7077;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
wi.org">[email protected]wi.org.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, 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: Combined Locks Hydroelectric Project (P-2715-026).
    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 but is not ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The Combined Locks Project consists of: (1) a concrete and
cyclopean stone dam approximately 654 feet long and 27 feet high with
additional 24 inch nominal flashboards mounted upon the spillway crest
at elevation 674.6 feet International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
(IGLD85); (2) a 126.9-acre reservoir at normal full pool elevation
676.7 feet IGLD85; (3) a powerhouse approximately 65 feet wide by 130
feet long housing two 3.1-megawatt (MW) generators, for a total
authorized capacity of 6.2 MW; (4) a tailrace channel; (5) a 265-foot-
long, 4.16-kilovolt (kV) interconnection line from the powerhouse to
transformer and 1,442-foot-long, 12.47-kV interconnection line from the
transformer to the substation; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
    The Combined Locks Project is operated as a run-of-the-river in
coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
which releases flows into the Lower Fox River from the Corps' Lake
Winnebago. Kaukauna maintains the impoundment within a 2-foot range of
the top of the wooden flashboards, when possible. The project average
annual generation between 2014 and 2020 was 42,744 megawatt hours.
    Kaukauna does not propose changes to project facilities or
operations. Kaukauna proposes to: (1) continue to operate the project
in a run-of-river mode to protect aquatic resources; (2) continue to
dispose of large woody debris and trash collected from the trashracks;
(3) implement invasive species monitoring every 2 years, and manage
species categorized as ``prohibited'' by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources if observed in the project boundary; and (4) evaluate
the project dam for National Register of Historic Places eligibility.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested individuals an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to
the Commission's Public Access Room. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests 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 protests
or motions to intervene must be received

on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (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 protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--May 2023
Scoping Document 1 comments due--June 2023
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)--July 2023
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--July 2023

    Dated: May 10, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10381 Filed 5-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P