[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10461-10465]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 177

[Docket Number PHMSA-2007-28119 (HM-247)]
RIN 2137-AE37

Hazardous Materials: Cargo Tank Motor Vehicle Loading and
Unloading Operations

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is closing this rulemaking proceeding under this docket
having reconsidered our proposal for additional regulations associated
with cargo tank motor vehicle (CTMV) loading or unloading operations.
This action is based on the findings of the regulatory assessment,
comments to docket of this rulemaking, and completion of a
supplementary policy analysis on how best to address the safety risks
of bulk loading and unloading operations. As an alternative to new
regulatory requirements, PHMSA will be issuing a guidance document to
provide best practices for CTMV loading and unloading operations; and
will be conducting research to better understand the wide range of
human factors that contribute to hazardous materials incidents
including those associated with CTMV loading and unloading operations.

DATES: Effective February 25, 2014, the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on March 11, 2011 at 76 FR 13313 is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dirk Der Kinderen, Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Regulatory Assessment
III. Comments on the NPRM
    A. Scope
    B. Risk Assessment
    C. Operating Procedures
    D. Training and Qualification
    E. Recordkeeping
    F. Compliance
IV. Reconsideration of the NPRM
    A. Guidance
    B. Outreach Campaign
    C. Human Factors Study
    D. Memorandum of Understanding
V. Conclusion

I. Background

    On March 11, 2011, PHMSA published an NPRM under Docket PHMSA-2007-
28119 (76 FR 13313) (HM-247) to amend the hazardous materials
regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) by requiring each person who
engages in CTMV loading or unloading operations to perform a risk
assessment of its loading and unloading operations and develop and
implement safe operating procedures based upon the results of the risk
assessment. PHMSA also proposed additional personnel training and
qualification requirements for persons who perform these operations.
    In the NPRM, PHMSA discussed the safety problem associated with
CTMV loading and unloading operations, including:
     A summary of loading and unloading incident data;
     National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Chemical
Safety Board (CSB) safety recommendations issued to PHMSA as a result
of accident

investigations related to bulk loading and unloading operations; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NTSB Safety Recommendations I-02-1, I-02-2, and R-04-10 and
CSB Recommendation 2006-06-I-LA-RI. On July 12, 2013 PHMSA published
safety advisory guidance (78 FR 41853) on safety precautions and
recommended guidance for persons responsible for unloading or
transloading hazardous materials from rail tank cars, specifically,
heating of rail tank cars for unloading or transloading. The
publication of this guidance resulted in the NTSB closing
recommendations I-02-1 and I-02-2 as ``Closed--Acceptable
Alternative Action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Recommended operating procedures proposed by the
Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation (Interested
Parties) (an informal association of offerors, carriers, and industrial
package manufacturers);
     A petition (P-1506) for rulemaking submitted by the
Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC); and
     Comments received in response to PHMSA's notice of
recommended practices published on January 4, 2008 under Docket Number
PHMSA-2007-28119 (73 FR 916) (Notice No. 07-9).
    In the NPRM, PHMSA indicated that adopting regulations to require
offerors, carriers, or facility operators to develop and implement
operating procedures governing the loading and unloading of a CTMV
would enhance the safety of such operations. We solicited comments on
the regulations proposed and the accuracy of PHMSA's cost and benefits
estimates set forth in the preliminary regulatory impact assessment.
The NPRM and supporting documents are available for review in the
docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov. A summary of the
proposed changes is provided in the following Table 1:

        Table 1--Proposed New Requirements and Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Affected entities                     New requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo tank carriers and facilities that   Assess the risks of
 engage in part 177 loading or            loading and unloading
 unloading operations.                    operations and develop written
                                          operating procedures.
                                          Train hazmat employees
                                          in the relevant aspects of the
                                          operational procedures.
                                          Annually qualify
                                          hazmat employees who perform
                                          loading and unloading
                                          operations.
Facilities providing transfer equipment   Develop and implement
 for cargo tank loading and unloading     a periodic maintenance
 operations under part 177.               schedule to prevent
                                          deterioration of equipment and
                                          conduct periodic operational
                                          tests to ensure that the
                                          equipment functions as
                                          intended.
                                          Ensure that the
                                          equipment meets the
                                          performance standards in part
                                          178 for specification CTMVs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Regulatory Assessment

    As part of PHMSA's initial rulemaking efforts in this area, a
preliminary analysis was completed. Through this analysis it was
apparent that shipments of hazardous materials (hazmat) by CTMV pose
some level of risk to public safety on a daily basis. A 2007 Commodity
Flow Survey by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics highlights this
by indicating that an estimated 323.5 billion-ton-miles of hazardous
materials were transported in 2007 of which approximately a third (104
billion-ton-miles) was transported by truck and an additional 7 percent
was by multimodal transport that included truck. We believe we can
safely reason that a similar amount is transported annually today,
which presents ample opportunity for incidents to occur during the
course of highway transportation including during CTMV loading and
unloading operations.
    As the HMR currently requires function specific training and
recordkeeping of this training (See 49 CFR Part 172 Subpart H) and has
loading and unloading requirements for transport via public highways
(See 49 CFR Part 177 Subpart B), PHMSA expects that most entities
already have some manner of documentation surrounding process review,
training of personnel, and maintenance of equipment involved in these
operations. Other federal agencies also have requirements associated
with loading and unloading operations that encompass bulk transport
vehicles. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Process Safety Management (PSM) standard (See 29 CFR 1910.119) contains
requirements for processes that use, store, manufacture, handle, or
transport highly hazardous chemicals on-site including bulk-loading and
unloading operations involving PSM-covered chemicals. Additionally, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations establish a general
duty clause for facility owners or operators of facilities that
produce, handle, process, distribute, or store certain chemicals. The
regulations entail identification of hazards associated with the
accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances; prevention of
such releases, and minimization of the consequences of releases.
    Despite these requirements incidents do continue to occur. An
analysis of CTMV loading and unloading incidents during the 10-year
period 2000-2009 revealed that, among other causes, human error is the
greatest primary cause of accidents. Most human error accidents can be
attributed to inattention to detail in performing a loading or
unloading function, including failure to follow attendance
requirements, leaving valves in open or closed positions, improperly
connecting hoses and other equipment, or not disconnecting hoses prior
to vehicles having completed fill operation. This leads to accidents
such as overfilling receiving tanks, over-pressurizing CTMVs, or
loading/unloading incompatible materials. About 3,500 incidents could
be attributed to CTMV loading and unloading incidents. These incidents
resulted in an estimated $68 million in societal damages, or $6.8
million per year, during the 10-year analysis period. Thus, there is a
cost to society from CTMV loading and unloading incidents.
    Following the publication of the HM-247 NPRM, PHMSA updated the
regulatory assessment. The updated analysis estimated benefits
associated with the proposed rule from avoidance of incidents at $1.7
million annually while costs are estimated to be $1.1 million annually.
The overall estimated impacts identified in the analysis are predicated
on the level of existing pre-compliance and the overall effectiveness
of the regulations. We assume 50 percent \2\ of affected entities would
already be in compliance with the

proposed measures, and that implementation of the proposed regulations
would reduce incidents by 40 percent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 50 percent compliance rate is based on comments to the
docket noting the prevalence of other non-DOT governmental
requirements and anecdotal reports of use of industry codes.
    \3\ The 40 percent effectiveness rate is based on a literature
review and our best judgment that indicates this rate is a
reasonable estimate of the reduction of human errors should the NPRM
be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, in the absence of true data, we rely heavily on
estimates of variables used in calculating the benefits and costs,
either from previous analyses for other rulemaking efforts or from
newly calculated estimates. Although, we did not receive adverse
comments on our estimates and also received some supportive comments,
we remain concerned about achieving a valid result. Despite the 1.5
benefit-cost ratio PHMSA is concerned that the overall benefit of
regulatory action is overestimated based on the role that human error
plays in loading and unloading incidents. Due to this uncertainty,
PHMSA conducted a supplementary policy analysis to help decision-makers
determine whether regulatory action was the best path forward or if
non-regulatory approaches may be just as effective. This supplementary
analysis is discussed in Section IV of this withdrawal notice.

III. Comments on the NPRM

    In response to PHMSA's March 11, 2011 NPRM, PHMSA received comments
from 44 organizations and individuals:

                     Table 2--Commenters to the NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Commenter                Docket No.  PHMSA-2007-28119-XXXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Retailers Association                                  0084
 (ARA)..............................
Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc...........                                0097
American Chemistry Council (ACC)....                          0053; 0085
American Gas Association (AGA)......                                0075
American Trucking Association (ATA).                          0047; 0091
Anonymous...........................  0059, 0061; 0062; 0063; 0064; 0067
Arkema, Inc.........................                                0046
Association of American Railroads...                                0048
Bayer Material Science..............                                0082
BP Products North America, Inc......                                0096
Brian T. Knapp......................                                0086
Dangerous Goods Advisory Council                              0065; 0081
 (DGAC).............................
Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC.....                                0078
Dow Chemical Company (Dow)..........                                0070
Dupont Global Logistics.............                                0080
Far West Agribusiness Association                                   0066
 (FWAA).............................
Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical                                      0069
 Association (IFCA).................
International Brotherhood of                                        0089
 Teamsters (IBT)....................
Institute of Makers of Explosives                                   0079
 (IME)..............................
Joyce Dillard.......................                                0094
National Association of Chemical                              0052; 0087
 Distributers (NACD)................
National Association of State Fire                                  0054
 Marshals...........................
National Grid.......................                                0050
National Propane Gas Association                                    0088
 (NPGA).............................
National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC).                          0051; 0095
National Transportation Safety Board                                0098
 (NTSB).............................
New England Fuel Institute..........                                0093
Petroleum Marketers Association of                            0092; 0099
 America (PMAA).....................
PPG Industries, Inc.................                                0090
Salt River Project Agricultural                                     0073
 Improvement and Power District
 (SRP)..............................
Sara Thane..........................                                0060
Society of Independent Gasoline                                     0076
 Marketers of America (SIGMA).......
Syngenta Crop Protection............                                0071
The Chlorine Institute..............                                0083
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)......                                0084
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard                               0035; 0100
 Investigation Board (CSB)..........
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group                          0049; 0074
 (USWAG)............................
Valero Energy Corporation...........                                0068
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC..                                0077
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments are available for review in the docket for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov. The comments generally opposed
adoption of this rulemaking and covered the following range of topics
associated with the proposed requirements: Scope; risk assessment;
operating procedures; training and qualification; recordkeeping; and
the compliance date. A brief summary of the essence of comments for
each topic follows:

A. Scope

    Commenters noted confusion about the applicability of the proposed
rule, namely, how the rulemaking would apply in the absence of a
carrier at a facility as well as the extent of the reach of the
applicability (e.g., Does it end at the first permanent valve on the
receiving equipment?). Additionally, commenters questioned whether
there is a minimum threshold before the rulemaking would apply (i.e.,
3,000 liters) and whether the rulemaking truly is performance-based
rather than prescriptive.

B. Risk Assessment

    PHMSA proposed to require any person who loads or unloads hazmat or

provides transfer equipment to load or unload a CTMV to prepare a risk
assessment of the operation. The risk assessment was to include
specific minimum measures to address the safety of such operations.
PHMSA received a substantial number of comments on the proposed
provisions associated with this requirement to conduct a risk
assessment. Commenters primarily expressed concern over the possibility
of duplication of efforts by facilities and carriers.

C. Operating Procedures

    PHMSA proposed to require each person who is subject to the risk
assessment requirement to develop, maintain, and adhere to an operating
procedure for the specific loading or unloading operation based on the
completed risk assessment. The operating procedures were to include
provisions that address pre-loading/unloading, loading/unloading,
emergency management, post-loading/unloading, design, maintenance and
testing of transfer equipment, facility oversight of carrier personnel,
and recordkeeping. Commenters questioned the intent of provisions for
the maintenance and testing of transfer equipment within the operating
procedure requirements. Commenters discussed additional issues such as
alternative measures for attendance during a loading operation.

D. Training and Qualification

    PHMSA proposed annual evaluation of hazmat employees performing
CTMV loading and unloading operations through measures such as direct
observation of routine performance of duties or through practice
sessions and drills. Many commenters strongly opposed this proposal.
They generally asserted that PHMSA significantly underestimated the
costs of such a requirement in the preliminary assessment for the NPRM.

E. Recordkeeping

    PHMSA proposed recordkeeping requirements for the written risk
assessment and operating procedure. Several commenters suggested that
this proposed requirement to document and retain risk assessments is
overly burdensome and unnecessary.

F. Compliance

    Commenters requested an extended compliance date to allow for time
to conduct a complete review of current practices and to implement
improvements or updates while others suggested that a significant
majority of potentially affected entities already have operating
procedures in place that would satisfy the regulations set forth in
this proposed rule such that an extended compliance period would not be
necessary.

IV. Reconsideration of the NPRM

    PHMSA conducts a policy analysis to identify and manage risks in
the transportation of hazmat. The policy analysis makes use of a risk
management framework that defines the main elements of identified
risk(s) and outlines possible ways to address the risk(s). The process
begins when a risk in the transportation of hazmat is first assessed
(e.g., when a risk is presented to PHMSA through an NTSB safety
recommendation), and ends with an agency decision on implementation of
an identified approach of how to manage the risk, such as implementing
a new regulation.
    In consideration of the negative comments on the NPRM and
uncertainties about regulatory action as well as the uncertainties of
the regulatory assessment, PHMSA conducted a supplementary policy
analysis to help decision-makers determine whether this effort is the
best course of action. After this policy analysis, we reconsidered our
approach to address the safety risks of bulk loading and unloading
operations through rulemaking. The analysis raised concerns on the
effectiveness of implementing any new regulations covering loading and
unloading operations including whether any proposed regulations would
be: (1) Redundant because the activity is already covered in some
manner under the current HMR; (2) impactful in that many of the
incidents having occurred in the past would probably continue to occur
because of the human element in incidents indicating that further
regulation may be ineffective; and (3) confusing to implement without
an memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the agencies that have
oversight clearly defining roles and enforcement of these types of
operations.
    The subsequent recommendations of the assessment include (in no
particular order of priority): (1) Preparing a guidance document that,
together with current regulations, provides direction on bulk loading
and unloading operational procedures, use of personal protective
equipment, and maintenance and inspection of transfer equipment; (2)
engaging in a rigorous outreach campaign to raise awareness; (3)
implementing a human factor study associated with bulk loading and
unloading operations; and (4) finalizing a (MOU) with the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and, possibly, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to specify any new
regulatory requirements and enforcement roles. These recommendations
are discussed in further detail below.

A. Guidance

    Agency guidance includes any statement of policy, interpretation of
a regulation, or any other method used to communicate to the regulated
public the agency expectations. Guidance is not legally binding and may
not mandate or require a particular action but rather is intended to
provide helpful information, clarify a rule's or statute's meaning, or
communicate our policy for implementing requirements. Based on concerns
raised on the effectiveness of further regulation in the supplementary
policy analysis, it is better served that PHMSA prepare a guidance
document that provides helpful information on CTMV loading and
unloading operations in addition to what is required by regulation. The
guidance would cover, in part, training on operational procedures,
provision of personal protection equipment, and maintenance and
inspection of transfer equipment including emergency shutdown systems
and would be based on the content and structure of the proposed
regulations in the NPRM. Although not binding as stated earlier, we
believe issuing a guidance document still provides an opportunity to
enhance safety by clarifying the current requirements, providing
helpful information, outlining our expectations for CTMV loading and
unloading operations, and clearly attributing human error to loading
and unloading incidents.

B. Outreach Campaign

    To supplement the abovementioned plans for issuing guidance, PHMSA
plans to develop and implement an outreach program to raise awareness
of the ongoing risk of CTMV loading and unloading incidents and to
educate regulated entities on ways to prevent or mitigate the risks.

C. Human Factors Study

    Human factors research involves the study of the way humans relate
to the world around them. Human factors certainly play a role in hazmat
transportation especially bulk loading and unloading operations because
individuals are directly involved (e.g., handling of transfer
equipment) and thus, human factors research is included among the
priorities of PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS)

research and development (R&D) five-year strategic plan (2012-2017). In
general, from review of hazmat incident report data for all incident
types, we have found that human error is the fourth-most cited cause of
failure as is similarly indicated above in Section II specific to
loading and unloading incidents.
    The goal of the OHMS R&D program is to enhance the safety mission
and identify and mitigate the emerging risks associated with hazmat
transportation and to better understand the factors contributing to
these risks. This human factors research effort is, among other things,
designed to supply information necessary to guide future changes in
regulations. OHMS created this priority to examine human involvement in
the release of hazmat (e.g., human error), to research regulations that
involve human impact, and develop new strategies to reduce human
handling errors. Although historically overlooked in hazmat
transportation safety research, we view this type of research essential
as the safe transportation of all hazmat involves human interaction
within the transportation system. This research would involve some
manner of assessment of human factors in bulk loading and unloading
operations including for CTMV operations. Results of such research may
bear out significant information that can be used to support future
rulemaking action.

D. Memorandum of Understanding

    As part of a plan to enhance safety of bulk loading and unloading
operations (including CTMV operations), PHMSA had envisioned
development of an MOU with OSHA to clarify responsibilities. This plan
called for a two-pronged approach of an MOU supplemented by a phased
rulemaking approach (i.e., first a rulemaking to address CTMV loading
and unloading operations followed by rulemakings for tank cars and
other bulk packaging). But, since we are withdrawing this rulemaking,
PHMSA does not plan to develop an MOU at this time because development
of the MOU was intended to be directly linked to the new regulations
proposed in the NPRM.

V. Conclusion

    PHMSA has concluded that adopting the regulations proposed under
the NPRM is not the best course of action at this time. PHMSA has based
this decision on its concerns that further regulation would create
redundancies, confusion, and possibly be ineffective in preventing many
of the very same incidents it is intended to address. Non-regulatory
approaches are available in the short term that would still provide an
opportunity to enhance safety of CTMV loading and unloading operations
by raising awareness and communicating our expectations. Key non-
regulatory activities include:
    1. Issuing a guidance document for CTMV loading and unloading
operations;
    2. Implementing an outreach campaign to educate the regulated
community on current regulatory requirements and best safety practices;
and
    3. Conducting human factors research to examine human involvement
in release of hazmat and to potentially use this to support future
consideration of rulemaking to address CTMV loading and unloading
operations.
    Accordingly, PHMSA is withdrawing the March 11, 2011 NPRM and
terminating this rulemaking proceeding.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 10, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 106.

Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-03205 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4407-4409]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01500]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0173; FRL-9904-91-Region 4]

Air Quality Implementation Plan; Alabama; Attainment Plan for the
Troy Area 2008 Lead Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted
by the State of Alabama through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), to EPA on November 9, 2012, for the purpose of
providing for attainment of the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Troy 2008 Lead nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Troy Area'' or ``Area''). The Troy Area
is comprised of a portion of Pike County in Alabama surrounding the
Sanders Lead Company (hereafter referred to as ``Sanders Lead''). EPA
is taking final action to approve Alabama's November 9, 2012 SIP
submittal regarding the attainment plan based on Alabama's attainment
demonstration for the Troy Area. The attainment plan includes the base
year emissions inventory requirements, an analysis of the reasonably
available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control
measures (RACM) requirements, reasonable further progress (RFP) plan,
modeling demonstration of lead attainment and contingency measures for
the Troy Area. This action is being taken in accordance with Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective February 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0173. All documents in the docket
are listed on the 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 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, 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. Zuri Farngalo may be reached
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is the action EPA is taking?
III. Why is EPA taking this action?
IV. What are EPA's responses to comments to Alabama's November 9,
2012 SIP submission?
V. Final action
VI. Statutory and executive order reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the Lead NAAQS,
lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\)
to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ calculated over a 3-month rolling average. EPA
established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health
studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with
exposures to lead emissions.
    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining
or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in
section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA
promulgated initial air quality designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,
which became effective on December 31, 2010, based on air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009, where there was
sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation. Designations
for all remaining areas were completed on November 22, 2011 (76 FR
72097), which became effective on December 31, 2011, based on air
quality monitoring data for calendar years 2008-2010. Effective
December 31, 2010, the Troy Area was designated as nonattainment for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS. This designation triggered a requirement for
Alabama to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Area would
attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 2015.
    EPA provided some guidance on attainment planning requirements for
the Lead NAAQS in the November 2008 final rule promulgating the
NAAQS.\1\ In addition, in July 2011, EPA provided additional guidance
and clarification in the form of a memorandum with questions and
answers on Lead NAAQS implementation.\2\ In April 2012, EPA also
released the ``SIP Toolkit--Attainment Demonstrations and Air Quality
Modeling'' (located at http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/kitmodel.html) \3\
with further guidance on air quality modeling for attainment
demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 73 FR 66964. http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/kitrules.html
    \2\ Memorandum titled ``2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation Questions and Answers''
dated July 8, 2011, from Scott L. Mathias, Interim Director, Air
Quality Policy Division.
    \3\ http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/kitrules.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEM submitted its 2008 Lead NAAQS attainment SIP for the Troy Area
on November 9, 2012, which included the base year emissions inventory
and the attainment demonstration. EPA proposed to approve the Troy Area
attainment SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS on September 6, 2013. EPA's
analysis of the submitted attainment demonstration included a review of
the pollutant addressed, emissions inventory requirements, modeling,
RACT and RACM requirements, RFP plan, and contingency measures for the
Troy Area. Refer to EPA's September 6, 2013, proposed rulemaking for
detailed rationale on EPA's analysis of the Troy area attainment
demonstration.

II. What is the action EPA is taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's SIP submittal for
the Troy Area, as submitted through ADEM to EPA on November 9, 2012,
for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
Alabama's lead attainment plan for the Troy Area includes a base year
emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of lead attainment, an
analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures.
    EPA has determined that Alabama's attainment plan for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS for the Troy Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA.
Thus, EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's attainment plan
for the Troy Area. EPA's analysis for this final action is discussed in
Section IV of EPA's September 6, 2013, proposed rulemaking.

III. Why is EPA taking this action?

    EPA has determined that all the criteria for Alabama's lead
attainment plan for the Troy Area have been met. EPA has determined
that Alabama's November 9, 2012 SIP submission meets the applicable
requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to
approve Alabama's November 9, 2012 SIP submission, which includes the
attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT
analysis, contingency measures and RFP plan.

IV. What are EPA's responses to comments for Alabama's November 9, 2012
SIP submission?

    As mentioned above, the proposed rule to approve the attainment
demonstration for the Troy Area was published on September 6, 2013. See
78 FR 58435. EPA received one comment in response to the proposed
approval of Alabama's attainment demonstration. The Commenter, Sanders
Lead, generally supported EPA's action but also requested that EPA
provide a clarification regarding contingency measures.
    Comment: The Commenter requests that EPA clarify that ``attainment
of the Pb NAAQS is not required until December 31, 2015, and the plan's
requirement that Sanders employ certain contingency measures if any Pb
NAAQS exceedance occurs after 2013, is not mandated by the Act.'' The
Commenter further states that ``while Sanders acknowledges the
regulatory preference to adopt contingency measures in the event of an
exceedance, employment of contingency measures may not be legally
required by the Clean Air Act until December 31, 2015.''
    Response: The Commenter is pointing to a provision of the SIP
submitted by Alabama that requires Sanders Lead to undertake certain
measures in the event that an exceedance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS occurs
after July 2013. In the Commenter's view, since the proposed (and
final) rule establish that the attainment date for the Area is December
31, 2015, the SIP cannot require Sanders Lead to undertake such
contingency measures before that date. It is true that CAA section
172(c)(9) provides that an attainment plan shall include contingency
measures if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. However, section 172(c)(9) also provides that an
attainment plan shall include contingency measures if an area fails to

make reasonable further progress towards attainment by the attainment
date. Moreover, CAA section 116 provides that nothing in the Act
precludes the right of a State to adopt or enforce any requirement
respecting the control or abatement of air pollution from stationary
sources, provided that the requirement is no less stringent than
required by the Act. Likewise, section 110(k)(3) provides that EPA
shall approve a submittal if it meets all of the applicable
requirements of the Act. Finally, CAA section 192(a) of the Act
provides that the primary Pb NAAQS shall be attained as expeditiously
as practicable.
    The aforementioned multiple CAA statutory provisions evidence
Congressional intent to achieve the health benefits of NAAQS attainment
as expeditiously as practicable, and to approve and enforce State
strategies that will achieve that goal. Therefore, EPA believes it is
entirely appropriate and consistent with the Act to approve the portion
of Alabama's SIP submittal which requires certain measures to be
undertaken by Sanders Lead in the event an exceedance of the Lead NAAQS
occurs after July 2013. Even assuming it is true that Alabama was not
required to submit this provision as part of its attainment SIP,
Alabama certainly was authorized to elect to submit the requirement,
and EPA has no basis under the CAA to disapprove it.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's lead attainment
plan for the Troy Area. EPA has determined that the SIP meets the
applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final
action to approve Alabama's November 9, 2012, SIP submission, which
includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory,
RACM/RACT analysis, contingency measures and RFP plan.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: December 18, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``2008 Lead
Attainment Demonstration for Troy Area'' at the end of the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP          geographic or        date/       EPA approval date        Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area    effective
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2008 Lead Attainment               Troy Area...........      11/9/12  1/28/14 [Insert       ....................
 Demonstration for Troy Area.                                          citation of
                                                                       publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-01500 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51286-51288]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0012]

National Flood Insurance Program Nationwide Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a final nationwide programmatic
environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announces the
availability of a final Nationwide Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (NPEIS) evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed
modifications to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended,
the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQs) regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, and FEMA's Directive
108-1 titled ``Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
Responsibilities and Program Requirements,'' FEMA has considered
comments received on the NFIP Draft NPEIS, which was issued in April
2017, and identifies FEMA's preferred alternative in the NFIP Final
NPEIS.

DATES: FEMA will publish a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days
after the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Electronic versions of the NFIP Final NPEIS are available at
the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for Docket ID FEMA-2012-0012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on the NFIP Final
NPEIS, contact Bret Gates, FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Floodplain Management Division, 400 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, or via email at [email protected], or by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Flooding has been, and continues to be, a
serious risk in the United States. To address the need, in 1968,
Congress established the NFIP as a Federal program to provide access to
federally backed flood insurance protection. The NFIP is a voluntary
Federal program through which property owners in participating
communities can purchase Federal flood insurance as a protection
against flood losses. In exchange, communities must enact local
floodplain management regulations to reduce flood risk and flood-
related damages. However, the power to regulate floodplain development,
including requiring and approving permits, establishing permitting
requirements, inspecting property, and citing violations, requires land
use authority. The regulation of land use falls under the State's
police powers, which the Constitution reserves to the States, and the
States delegate this power down to their respective political
subdivisions. FEMA has no direct involvement in the administration of
local floodplain management ordinances or in the permitting process for
development in the floodplain.
    In addition to providing flood insurance and reducing flood damages
through floodplain management, the NFIP identifies and maps the
nation's floodplains. Maps depicting flood hazard information are used
to promote broad-based awareness of flood hazards, provide data for
rating flood insurance policies, and determine the appropriate minimum
floodplain management criteria for flood hazard areas.
    The proposed modifications to the NFIP are needed to (a) implement
the legislative requirements of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12) and the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA); and (b) to demonstrate compliance
with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As stated in the Draft NPEIS the
need to implement the legislative requirements of BW-12 and HFIAA
arises from the recent concerns over the fiscal soundness of the NFIP.
    This Final NPEIS considers four alternatives and describes the
potential environmental effects of each alternative. The four
alternatives include:
--Alternative 1 (No Action)
    [cir] The No Action Alternative refers to the current
implementation of the NFIP. The No Action Alternative is prescribed by
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) and
serves as a benchmark against which impacts of the alternatives can be
evaluated.

--Alternative 2 (Legislatively Required Changes, Floodplain Management
Criteria Guidance, and Letter of Map Change [LOMC] Clarification)
(Preferred Alternative)

    [cir] Phase out of subsidies on certain pre-FIRM properties (non-
primary residences, business properties, severe repetitive loss
properties, substantially damaged or improved properties, and
properties for which the cumulative claims payments exceed the fair
market value of the property) at a rate of 25 percent premium increases
per year.
    [cir] Phase out of subsidies on all other pre-FIRM properties
through annual premium rate increases of an average rate of at least 5
percent, but no more than 15 percent, per risk classification, with no
individual policy exceeding an 18 percent premium rate increase.
    [cir] Implement a monthly installment plan payment option for non-
escrowed flood insurance policies.
    [cir] Clarify that pursuant to 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2), a community must
obtain and maintain documentation of compliance with the appropriate
Federal or State laws, including the ESA, as a condition of issuing
floodplain development permits.
    [cir] Clarify that the issuing of certain LOMC requests (i.e., map
revisions) is contingent on the community, or the project proponent on
the community's behalf, submitting documentation of compliance with the
ESA.

--Alternative 3 (Legislatively Required Changes, Proposed ESA
Regulatory Changes, and LOMC Clarification)

    [cir] Phase out of subsidies on certain pre-FIRM properties (non-
primary residences, business properties, severe repetitive loss
properties, substantially damaged or improved properties, and
properties for which the cumulative claims payments exceed the fair
market value of the property) at a rate of 25 percent premium increases
per year.
    [cir] Phase out of subsidies on all other pre-FIRM properties
through annual premium rate increases of an average rate of at least 5
percent, but no more than 15 percent, per risk classification, with no
individual policy exceeding an 18 percent premium rate increase.
    [cir] Implement a monthly installment plan payment option for non-
escrowed flood insurance policies.
    [cir] Establish a new ESA-related performance standard in the
minimum floodplain management criteria at 44 CFR 60.3 that would
require communities to obtain and maintain documentation that any
adverse impacts caused by proposed development, including fill, to ESA-
listed species and designated critical habitat will be mitigated to the
maximum extent possible.
    [cir] Clarify that the exception to the no-rise performance
standard in the floodway applies only to projects that serve a public
purpose or result in the restoration of the natural and beneficial
functions of floodplains.
    [cir] Increase the probation surcharge applicable to NFIP
communities placed on probation from $50 to $100.
    [cir] Clarify that the issuance of certain LOMC requests (i.e., map
revisions) is contingent on the community, or the project proponent on
the community's behalf, submitting documentation of compliance with the
ESA.

--Alternative 4 (Legislatively Required Changes, ESA Guidance, and LOMC
Clarification)

    [cir] Phase out of subsidies on certain pre-FIRM properties (non-
primary residences, business properties, severe repetitive loss
properties, substantially damaged or improved properties, and
properties for which the cumulative claims payments exceed the fair
market value of the property) at a rate of 25 percent premium increases
per year.
    [cir] Phase out of subsidies on all other pre-FIRM properties
through annual premium rate increases of an average rate of at least 5
percent, but no more than 15 percent, per risk classification, with no
individual policy exceeding an 18 percent premium rate increase.
    [cir] Implement a monthly installment plan payment option for non-
escrowed flood insurance policies.
    [cir] Utilize the existing performance standard in 44 CFR
60.3(a)(2) to implement a new policy/procedure requiring communities to
ensure that, for any floodplain development for which a floodplain
development permit is sought, the impacts to ESA-listed species and
designated critical habitat are identified and assessed and, if there
are any potential adverse impacts to such species and habitat as a
result of such development, that the community obtain and maintain
documentation that the proposed floodplain development will be
undertaken in compliance with the ESA.
    [cir] Clarify that the issuance of certain LOMC requests (i.e., map
revisions) is contingent on the community, or the project proponent on
the community's

behalf, submitting documentation of compliance with the ESA.
    Environmental topics addressed in the Final NPEIS include air
quality, noise, land use and planning, geology and soils, water
resources, biological resources, cultural resources, aesthetics/visual
resources, infrastructure, socioeconomic resources, hazardous waste and
materials, and climate change. Best management practices and mitigation
measures that could alleviate environmental effects have been
considered and are included where relevant within the Final NPEIS. The
proposed alternatives do not have natural or depletable resource
requirements because they are changes in policy or regulation that do
not involve any physical activities for which resources would be
required. For these alternatives, no significant or unavoidable adverse
impacts are anticipated.
    The Final NPEIS considers comments on the Draft NPEIS, including
those submitted during the public comment period that officially began
on April 7, 2017 and ended on June 6, 2017, following a 60-day comment
period. Appendix M provides the Draft NFIP comments with FEMA
responses, and notes revisions in the Final NPEIS.
    The NFIP Final NPEIS is available for viewing on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-
2012-0012.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.; 40 CFR part 1500; FEMA
Instruction 108-1-1.

    Dated: October 20, 2017.
Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-23902 Filed 11-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-A6-P


Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule Child Lead Benefits, Weighted Estimates ( Directs + 413 to 433 Upgrade Option) Category Type Reduced Cases Annual Benefits ( 2001$) Neo Natal Mortality Sport 0.1089 $ 707,719.99 Neo Natal Mortality Sub 0.0443 $ 287,909.51 Avoided IQ Loss Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Avoided IQ Loss Sub 31.9909 $ 301,322.56 Reduced IQ < 70 Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Reduced IQ < 70 Sub 0.1144 $ 6,636.58 Reduced Pb > 20 Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Reduced Pb > 20 Sub 0.0000 $ 0.00 Total $ 1,303,588.65 February 14, 2003 Page 1 of 1 exlchld. xls  Child Lead


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86551-86552]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 539-015]

Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC; 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.: 539-015.
    c. Date Filed: April 30, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC (Lock 7 Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Mother Ann Lee Hydroelectric Station Water
Power Project (Mother Ann Lee Project).

    f. Location: The project is located on the Kentucky River in
Mercer, Jessamine, and Garrard Counties, Kentucky. The project does not
occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: David Brown Kinloch, Lock 7 Hydro, 414 S
Wenzel St., Louisville, Kentucky 40204;<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Joshua Dub at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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_ADDRESS>(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. The first
page of any filing should include docket number P-539-015.
    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 at this time.
    l. The Mother Ann Lee Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) A reservoir with a surface area of 777 acres and a
storage capacity of 5,828 acre-feet at elevation 513.12 NGVD29
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929); (2) a 250-foot-long, 15.3-
foot-high, timber crib dam with a concrete cap and an abandoned 62-
foot-long lock structure on the east side; (3) a 120-foot-long, 100-
foot-wide forebay; (4) a 24-foot-tall, 84-foot-wide trashrack; (5) a
93-foot-long, 25-foot-wide, 16-foot-high powerhouse integral with the
dam containing three generating units with a total installed capacity
of 2,210 kilowatts; (6) a 30-foot-long, 15.3-foot-high concrete
spillway section from the powerhouse to the west shore; (7) an 85-foot-
long substation; and (8) a 34.5 kilovolt, 4,540-foot-long transmission
line. The project is estimated to generate an average of 9,200
megawatt-hours annually.
    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. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Access
Room due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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, .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
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'' 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 and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions
to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--January 2020
Request Additional Information (if necessary)--February 2020
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)--February 2020
Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis--March 2021

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: December 22, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28835 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 37749]
[DOCID:fr11jy07-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-749-000; ER07-749-001]

Dyon, LLC.; Notice of Issuance of Order.

July 3, 2007.
    Dyon, LLC (Dyon) filed an application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-
based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity and
ancillary services at market-based rates. Dyon also requested waivers
of various Commission regulations. In particular, Dyon requested that
the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Dyon.
    On July 2, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Dyon should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
August 1, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Dyon is authorized to issue securities
and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety,
or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided
that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of Dyon, compatible with the public interest, and is
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Dyon's issuance of securities or assumptions of
liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also 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
filed to access the document. 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.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13435 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45814-45816]
[DOCID:fr10au06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 2, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER03-983-002.
    Applicants: Fox Energy Company LLC.
    Description: Fox Energy Company LLC submits an updated market power
analysis and proposed amendments to its market-based rate schedule.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1045-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits a
compliance filing pursuant to the Commission 7/13/06 letter Order.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1138-000.
    Applicants: Fox Energy Company LLC.
    Description: Fox Energy Company LLC submits a notice of withdrawal
of its filing made on 6/15/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1221-001.
    Applicants: Parkview AMC Energy, LLC.
    Description: Parkview AMC Energy LLC submits an application for
Order Accepting Market Based Rate Tariff under ER06-1221.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1293-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc. submits a roll-over
service agreement for long-term firm point-to-point transmission
service, Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 5.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1294-000.
    Applicants: Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Central Vermont Public Service Corp submits an
executed non-conforming point-to-point service agreement under the ISO
New England Inc Tariff, Schedule 20, for service to TransAlta Energy
Marketing Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1295-000.
    Applicants: Boston Edison Company.
    Description: Boston Edison Co submits an executed wholesale
distribution service agreement for service to its affiliate, MATEP LLC,
with an effective date of 10/1/06 under ER06-1295.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1296-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement with WM Renewable Energy, LLC and
PECO Energy Company.

    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1297-000.
    Applicants: Fox Energy Company LLC.
    Description: Fox Energy Co, LLC submits a request for FERC's
approval to amend Rate Schedule 2 that it is acquiring from Calpine
Fox.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1298-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Co, LLC submits an executed
Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Oconomowoc
Utilities dated 6/29/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0161.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1299-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Co LLC submits an executed
Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Waunakee
Utilities dated 5/30/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1300-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Co, LLC submits an executed
Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Hustisford
Utilities dated 6/29/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1301-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Co, LLC submits an executed
Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Waupun
Utilities dated 5/15/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0159.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1302-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Co LLC submits an executed
Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Boscobel
Utilities dated 5/9/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0185.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1303-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Co, LLC submits an executed
Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Jefferson
Utilities dated 6/29/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0160.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1304-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Co LLC submits an executed
Distribution--Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Cedarburg
Light & Water Utility dated 5/26/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1305-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Company LLC submits an executed
Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Columbus Water
& Light dated 6/29/06.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1308-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits proposed Schedules 10-C, 16-A, and 17-A & certain conforming
revisions to the its OAT&EM Tariff.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0097.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1309-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool Inc submits an executed Agreement
for the Provision of Transmission Service to Missouri Bundled Retail
Load with the Empire District Electric Co.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1310-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits an agreement for
network integration transmission service under its OATT with American
Electric Power Service Corp as agent for Appalachian Power Company, et
al.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0095.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1311-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc submits its non-conforming Market
Participant Service Agreements with Freedom Partners, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0094.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1312-000.
    Applicants: Empire District Electric Co.
    Description: Empire District Electric Co submits the Third Revised
Sheet 1 of its market-based rate tariff, revised to authorize the sell
of imbalance energy into Southwest Power Pool Inc.'s energy imbalance
market.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1313-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy Inc.; Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Westar Energy Inc and Kansas Gas and Elec Co submit
Third Revised Sheet 1 of its market based rate tariff, revised to
authorized to sell imbalance energy into the Southwest Power Pool Inc
energy imbalance market.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1314-000.
    Applicants: E.ON U.S., LLC.
    Description: E.ON U.S. LLC submits Amendment 23 to an
Interconnection Agreement with East Kentucky Power Cooperative.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1315-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits proposed revisions to Attachment X--Standard Large Generator
Interconnection Procedures et al of its OAT&EM Tariff.

    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0104.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1316-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an agreement for
Network Integration Transmission Service under its OATT.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1317-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits a Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement with Wabash Valley Power Association,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1318-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool Inc submits an executed Agreement
for the Provision of Transmission Service to Missouri Bundled Retailed
Load with Kansas City Power & Light Co et al.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Monday, August 21, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings

    Docket Numbers: ES06-58-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: MDU Resources, Group Inc submits an application for
authority to issue an additional 400,000 shares of Company Common Stock
in connection with its Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan
under ES06-58.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060801-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, August 18, 2006.

    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 Sec.
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 than 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 docket(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. E6-13041 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34128]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15323]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ18-15-000]

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 3, 2018, Oncor Electric Delivery Company
LLC submitted its tariff filing: Oncor Tex-La Tariff Rate Changes to be
effective 7/1/2018.
    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 5 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 website 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 protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 24, 2018.

    Dated: July 12, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15323 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P