[Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 55886-55890]
[DOCID:fr29oc09-126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the Altamont Corridor Rail
Project From Stockton to San Jose, CA

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this Notice to advise other agencies and the
public that FRA and the California High-Speed Rail Authority
(Authority) will be preparing an Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Altamont Corridor Rail
Project proposed by the Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission (SJRRC) from Stockton to San Jose via the Altamont Pass and
Tri Valley area, connecting the Northern San Joaquin Valley and the San
Francisco Bay Area. The Authority and SJRRC are proposing to develop a
dedicated regional rail corridor through the Altamont Pass and the Tri
Valley area capable of supporting intercity and commuter rail passenger
services. The project EIR/EIS will be prepared in compliance with
relevant Federal and State laws, in particular the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will serve
as a cooperating agency for the preparation of the EIR/EIS.
    FRA is issuing this Notice to alert interested parties and solicit
public and agency input into the development of the scope of the EIS
and to advise the public that outreach activities conducted by the
Authority, the SJRRC, and their representatives will be considered in
the preparation of the combined EIR/EIS.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Altamont Corridor Rail
Project EIR/EIS, including the project's purpose and need, the
alternatives to be considered, the impacts to be evaluated and the
methodologies to be used in the evaluations, should be provided to the
Authority by December 4, 2009. Public scoping meetings are scheduled
from November 10 to November 18, 2009, at the times and dates listed
below in Livermore, Stockton, Fremont, and San Jose, California.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the project scope should be sent to Mr.
Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director, ATTN: Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/
EIS, California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425,
Sacramento, CA 95814, or via e-mail with the Subject line ``Altamont
Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may
also be provided orally or in writing at the scoping meetings scheduled
at the following locations:
     Livermore, CA, November 10, 2009, from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.,
Robert Livermore Community Center, 4444 East Avenue, Livermore, CA.
     Stockton, CA, November 12, 2009, from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.,
San Joaquin Council of Governments, 555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA.
     Fremont, CA, November 17, 2009, from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.,
Fremont Teen Center, 39770 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, CA.
     San Jose, CA, November 18, 2009, from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m., Le
Petit Trianon Theatre, 72 North Fifth Street, San Jose, CA.
    The project's purpose and need and the description of alternatives
currently under consideration for the proposed action will be presented
at these meetings. The meeting facilities will be accessible to persons
with disabilities. If special translation or signing services or other
special accommodations are needed, please contact Ms. Kim Christensen
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 48 hours before
the scoping meeting. Also, scoping materials will be made available
through the Authority's Internet site: http://
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs, USDOT/
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. (Mail Stop
20),

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Mr. Dan Leavitt,
Deputy Director, ATTN: Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS,
California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425,
Sacramento, CA 95814 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scoping

    The FRA, the Authority, and SJRRC invite all interested
individuals, and organizations, public agencies, and Native American
Tribes to comment on the scope of the EIS, including the project's
purpose and need, the alternatives to be studied, the impacts to be
evaluated and the evaluation methods to be used. Comments should focus
on: Alternatives that may be less costly or have fewer environmental or
community impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives and
the identification of any significant social, economic, or
environmental issues related to alternatives.

The Proposed Project

    The Authority and SJRRC are proposing to develop a dedicated
regional rail corridor through Altamont Pass and the Tri Valley area
capable of supporting intercity and commuter rail passenger services.
The project would improve the existing Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)
service managed by SJRRC by accommodating more trains per day, reducing
travel times, and eliminating freight railroad delays by providing
separate passenger tracks. The Altamont Corridor will serve as a feeder
to the statewide High-Speed Train (HST) System being planned and
developed by the Authority. The project will consider connections
between the Altamont corridor and the HST mainline between Stockton and
Modesto and HST-compatible infrastructure that would allow trains to
run from one rail line to the other in order to accommodate intercity
travel between stations along the Altamont Corridor and regional stops
on the greater statewide HST System.
    The preparation of this Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS will
involve development of preliminary engineering designs and assessment
of environmental effects associated with the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the project including track, ancillary facilities,
and stations along the Altamont Corridor.

Agency Responsibilities

    The Authority was established in 1996 and is authorized and
directed by statute to undertake the planning for the development of a
proposed statewide HST System that is fully coordinated with other
public transportation services. The Authority has jurisdiction for
planning passenger rail service capable of speeds over 125 miles per
hour (mph); high-speed equipment may attain speeds higher than 125
miles per hour when operating on the proposed Altamont Corridor Rail
Project. The SJRRC manages and operates the current ACE between
Stockton and San Jose. Because the proposed Altamont Corridor Rail
Project may include high-speed compatible equipment capable of
attaining speeds higher than 125 mph, this undertaking is within the
Authority's statutory authority. It is anticipated that the SJRRC would
provide regional rail service between the northern San Joaquin Valley
and the Bay Area through the improved alignment which would be provided
by the Project.
    The FRA has responsibility for overseeing the safety of railroad
operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed rail
transportation system. For the proposed project, FRA may need to take
certain regulatory actions prior to operation. The FRA is also
authorized to provide Federal funding for intercity passenger rail
capital investments through high-speed and intercity passenger rail
grant programs created in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008. The FTA has responsibility for providing Federal funding
for intra-city commuter rail capital investments. FTA has funded
improvements in this corridor in the past including intermodal stations
and park and ride lots.
    To ensure compliance with the various State and Federal
environmental laws, the Authority is the State lead agency for purposes
of compliance with CEQA and the FRA is the lead Federal agency for
purposes of compliance with NEPA. Since FTA maintains an interest in
transportation improvements in the corridor, it will be a cooperating
agency in this endeavor in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6.
    The Altamont Corridor Partnership Working Group (Working Group) was
established by the Authority to bring together local partners for the
purpose of identifying goals, objectives, and key features of a joint-
use regional rail improvement in the corridor. Members include the San
Joaquin Council of Governments, the California Partnership for the San
Joaquin Valley, Great Valley Center, the Tri Valley Policy Advisory
Committee, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Sacramento Area Council
of Governments, along with service providers including Altamont
Commuter Express, Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), Capitol
Corridor, SamTrans, and Caltrain. The Working Group recognizes the
importance of the corridor for regional transportation needs and has
reached consensus on the corridor limits (Stockton to San Jose),
principal features including key intermodal connections, and goals and
objectives which include improving the ACE service in the near term as
well as developing capability to accommodate high-speed trains through
connections to the HST System and HST-compatible equipment. The Working
Group will continue to support the project as it moves forward in the
planning and implementation process.

Past Planning Efforts

    The Altamont Corridor was studied by the Authority and identified
as a candidate route to the Bay Area in the Statewide HST System
Program EIR/EIS. The Authority and FRA further examined the corridor in
the 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley HST EIR/EIS and selected the
Pacheco Pass via Gilroy as the route to connect the main line of the
HST network in the Central Valley with the Peninsula and San Francisco.
However, in the Bay Area to Central Valley HST EIR/EIS, the Authority
also indicated that they would pursue a regional joint-use rail project
in the Altamont Corridor as an independent project to meet a purpose
and need separate from the proposed HST System, which might provide
both HST compatible infrastructure and connection(s) to the statewide
HST System.
    Subsequently, the Authority began to work with a regional
partnership to plan a joint-use rail line through the Altamont Pass
that would support new regional intercity and commuter rail services
operating in Northern California between Stockton and San Jose and
capable of accommodating HST-compatible equipment. Accordingly, the
Authority and the SJRRC reached an agreement and are proposing to
develop a new regional rail line from Stockton to San Jose through the
Altamont Pass as well as eastern and southern Alameda County to provide
both commuter and intercity passenger rail service that would improve
connectivity and accessibility between the Northern San Joaquin Valley
and the Bay Area. The rail line would be designed and equipped to
accommodate electrified light-weight passenger trains and would be
useable by HST-compatible equipment.

    The development of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project as a
complement to the Statewide HST System is consistent with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Bay Area Regional Rail
Plan, which identified the Altamont Corridor as a key future northern
California regional rail route and also noted that development of this
corridor in conjunction with implementation of the statewide HST System
could provide greater benefits to the State and region.
    The Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS will build upon the Bay
Area Regional Rail Plan and upon relevant decisions made with the
statewide HST and Bay Area to Central Valley HST program EIR/EISs. The
Altamont Corridor EIR/EIS will be carried out in accordance with the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500 et
seq.), State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations
15168(b)) and FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999).
    In concert with the spirit of the CEQ's NEPA regulations, FRA will
encourage incorporation by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) of preceding
planning and environmental documents. Also, it is one of the mandates
of the CEQ regulations that Federal agencies reduce paperwork (Sec.
1500.4), produce a reasonable number of pages without being
overwhelming (Sec.  1502.7) and create environmental documents that are
written in plain language and are highly accessible to the reader
(Sec.  1502.8). The NEPA document will emphasize graphics, virtual
simulation, and an accessible narrative format. Technical documentation
will be established in appendices.
    The FRA and the Authority will assess the site characteristics,
size, nature, and timing of the project to determine whether the
impacts are potentially significant and whether impacts can be avoided
or mitigated. The Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS will identify
and evaluate reasonable and feasible site-specific alignment
alternatives, evaluate the impacts from construction, operation, and
maintenance of the project, and identify mitigation measures.
Information and documents regarding the Altamont Corridor Rail Project
environmental review process will be made available through the
Authority's Internet site: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.

Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project

    The purpose of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project is to develop a
joint-use regional rail corridor for intercity passenger rail and
commuter rail services between Stockton and San Jose via the Altamont
Pass and the Tri Valley area providing connecting links with the
statewide HST System. This transportation improvement is necessary to
facilitate regional intercity and local travel and connectivity through
the Altamont Pass gateway between the San Francisco Bay Area and the
Northern San Joaquin Valley. It would provide important regional links
to the statewide HST network, and replace the ACE with new, faster,
more frequent intercity and commuter rail services with more trains per
day and extended hours of operation, consistent with key project goals
of providing improved travel times and expanded service both to address
the regional need for an intercity and commuter rail mobility option in
the I-580/I-205 corridor as well as provide a feeder to the statewide
HST System.
    The need for the Altamont Corridor Rail Project stems from the
social and economic ties and travel demand that bind together the
Northern San Joaquin Valley, the Tri Valley, and the South Bay Area as
well as high levels of existing and future anticipated growth, travel
demand, and congestion that will cause environmental degradation and
higher risks to safety if not addressed. This need cannot be met by the
existing ACE service or infrastructure which has significant operating
limitations including:
     Limited capacity single track for much of the route;
     Slow average operating speeds;
     Reliance on dispatching by a third party;
     Service limitations; and
     A Common passenger and freight railroad right-of-way.

Alternatives

    The Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS will consider a No
Action or No Project Alternative and project build alternatives.

No Action Alternative

    The No Action (No Project or No Build) Alternative is defined to
serve as the baseline for assessment of the project alternatives. The
No Action Alternative represents the region's transportation system
(highway, air, and conventional rail) as it exists in 2009, and as it
would exist after completion of the programs or projects currently
planned for funding and implementation by 2035. The No Action
Alternative defines the existing and future intercity transportation
system for the Altamont Corridor based on programmed and funded
improvements to the intercity transportation system through 2035,
according to the following sources of information: the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Regional Transportation
Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport plans, and intercity
passenger rail plans.

Project Alternatives

    At this time, no proposed alignments have been identified for the
Altamont Corridor Rail Project; however, the corridor limits are
between Stockton and San Jose, California, which are the terminal
stations for the current ACE service. Specific alignments and station
locations will be identified along this corridor and evaluated through
the preparation of this project environmental document. The Altamont
Corridor Rail Project is intended to include a potential branch east of
Tracy to allow operation of trains between the Bay Area and points
north including Stockton and Sacramento as well as points south
including Modesto and beyond within the statewide HST System. Project
alternatives are intended to provide intermodal connections to the Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART) to serve the Oakland Airport, the cities of
Oakland and San Francisco as well as other East Bay and South Bay
locations via BART. Intermodal connections to BART would be provided in
the Livermore vicinity, should the Dublin/Pleasanton BART line be
extended, as well as in the Fremont/Union City vicinity, either meeting
the existing Fremont line or the Warm Springs/San Jose extension. The
Altamont Corridor Rail Project may also accommodate a future connection
to the Dumbarton rail service in the Fremont/Union City vicinity as
well as an intermodal connection to the Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) light rail network in Santa Clara County. Additionally, the
project will accommodate feeder and connecting bus services providing
access to proximate market areas and interfacing with regional bus
links where appropriate.
    Selected Planning Requirements: To meet the purpose and need, the
following initial considerations and potential requirements for project
alternatives have been identified:
     Number of Tracks--Two main tracks with appropriately
located crossovers should be sufficient to support frequent intercity
and regional

service in the Altamont Corridor. Although the operating plan may
include regional trains making all stops in addition to regional
limited service intercity trains which would skip selected stops, two
track stations are expected to be sufficient.
     Maximum Speed/Horizontal Curves--The ultimate project goal
is to accommodate lightweight electric multiple-unit trains which could
be operated on other parts of the statewide HST network. The existing
corridor has sections which pass through rural areas with stations 12
or more miles apart. Under these conditions, speeds in excess of 125
mph, possibly exceeding 150 mph could be attained (as was identified
for sections in the San Joaquin Valley in Bay Area to Central Valley
HST EIR/EIS). A maximum speed will not be established until alignment
options and station locations are identified in more detail. The
ultimate alignment speed will be determined by identifying a cost-
effective solution taking into account station spacing, profile grades,
safety, and vehicle technology. Accordingly, the planning standard for
horizontal curves will be developed to support the highest feasible
speed where the alignment is unconstrained.
    Alternatives Analysis: Further engineering studies will examine and
refine alignments in the selected corridor, including previously
considered alignment alternatives contained in the Bay Area Regional
Rail Plan, the 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley HST EIR/EIS,
alternatives that may be suggested in scoping, and other alternatives
within the study corridor that would satisfy the purpose and need of
the project. Alignment options for evaluation in the EIR/EIS will be
selected by the Authority and FRA, in cooperation with the SJRRC and
FTA, after considering the project purpose and need, practicality,
feasibility, travel time, train speed, cost, safety, local access
times, potential connections with other modes of transportation,
ridership potential, the distribution of population and major
destinations along the route, local planning constraints/conditions,
and environmental considerations.
    Station location options will be identified in conjunction with
candidate alignments and evaluated by the Authority and FRA taking into
account travel time, train speed, cost, local access times, potential
connections with other modes of transportation, ridership potential,
the distribution of population and major destinations along the route,
and local planning constraints/conditions. Station area development
policies to encourage transit-friendly development near and around
proposed stations will be prepared in coordination with local and
regional planning agencies to promote higher density, mixed-use,
pedestrian-oriented development around the stations. Although no
specific station sites have been identified, candidate locations
developed in cooperation with the Working Group include: Stockton,
Modesto, Tracy, Livermore, Pleasanton, Fremont/Union City, Milpitas,
and San Jose. Additional station locations may be considered, including
those suggested in scoping. Multimodal opportunities would also be
considered at stations in Stockton, Modesto, Livermore, Fremont/Union
City, Milpitas, and San Jose to connect with the HST mainline, BART,
Caltrain, and VTA.
    Implementation Phasing: Due to the length of the corridor, it is
anticipated that the project would be implemented in phases. Although
specific phasing cannot be identified until the project alternatives
are defined and evaluated, consideration will be given to identifying
``building blocks'' both with regard to geographic segments as well as
levels of investment (e.g., improved conventional service vs. high-
speed electrified service) which would be combined in a logical fashion
to provide a corridor development plan. As a result, portions of the
project could be implemented to provide near-term improvements to the
existing ACE service. As connecting with BART is essential to provide
access to the greater Bay Area including Oakland, consideration will be
given to project phases meeting BART either in Livermore (with a BART
extension) or in the Fremont/Union City vicinity.

The EIS Process and the Role of Participating Agencies and the Public

    The purpose of the EIR/EIS process is to explore in a public
setting the potentially significant effects of implementing the
proposed action on the physical, human, and natural environment. Areas
of investigation will be developed during the scoping process and may
include, but not be limited to, transportation impacts; safety and
security; land use and zoning; indirect and cumulative impacts; land
acquisition, displacements, and relocations; cultural resource impacts,
including impacts on historical and archaeological resources and
parklands/recreation areas; neighborhood compatibility and
environmental justice; natural resource impacts including air quality,
wetlands, water resources, noise, vibration, energy, wildlife; and
ecosystems, including endangered species and temporary construction
impacts.
    FRA and the Authority will comply with all environmental laws,
regulations, and executive orders applicable to the proposed project
during the environmental review process to the maximum extent
practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
regulations of the CEQ implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations 15168(b)) and
FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545,
May 26, 1999), project-level air quality conformity regulation of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR part 93(b)), Section
404(b)(1) EPA guidelines (40 CFR part 230), Executive Orders 11988,
11990, and 12898 regarding floodplains, wetlands, and environmental
justice, respectively, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800), Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (50 CFR part 402), and Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act (49 USC 303). Measures to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate all adverse impacts will be identified and evaluated.

Scoping and Comments

    FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during
scoping and review of the resulting environmental documents. Comments
and suggestions are invited from all interested agencies, Native
American Tribes, and the public at large so that the full range of
issues related to the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives
are addressed and that all significant issues are identified. In
particular, FRA is interested in learning whether there are areas of
environmental concern where there might be a potential for significant
impacts. Public agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA
and the Authority of the applicable permit and environmental review
requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the
environmental information that is germane to the agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Public
agencies are requested to advise FRA if they anticipate taking a major
action in connection with the proposed project and if they wish to
cooperate in the preparation of the project EIS/EIR.
    Public scoping meetings have been scheduled as an important
component of the scoping process for both the State and Federal
environmental review. The scoping meetings described in this Notice
will be advertised locally and

additional public notice will be provided separately with the dates,
times, and locations of these scoping meetings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 23, 2009.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-26098 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8007-8008]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5124-022]

Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary
Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 5124-022.
    c. Date Filed: October 30, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc. (WEC).
    e. Name of Project: North Branch No. 3 Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the North Branch Winooski River in Washington
County, Vermont. The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Patricia Richards, General Manager,
Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc., P.O. Box 8, 40 Church Street
East Montpelier, Vermont 05651; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Michael Tust at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply
comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary
terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the
Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of

electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via
the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: 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 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 for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final rule on
July 15, 2020, revising the regulations under 40 CFR parts 1500--1518
that federal agencies use to implement NEPA (see Update to the
Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act, 85 FR 43,304). The Final Rule became
effective on and applies to any NEPA process begun after September 14,
2020. An agency may also apply the regulations to ongoing activities
and environmental documents begun before September 14, 2020, which
includes the proposed North Branch No. 3 Project relicensing.
Commission staff intends to conduct its NEPA review in accordance with
CEQ's new regulations.
    l. The existing North Branch 3 Project is located at the 115-foot-
high, 1,525-foot-long Wrightsville Dam and consists of the following
constructed facilities: A 445-foot-long, 5-foot-diameter steel
aboveground penstock emerging from the base of the dam that conveys
water to a 1,320-square-foot partially-buried project powerhouse
containing three fixed blade turbines with rated capacities of 96, 259,
and 578-kilowatts (kW) for a total installed capacity of 933 kW; a 750
square-foot substation located adjacent to the powerhouse that steps up
the voltage from 4.16 kilovolts (kV) to 12.5 kV; a 450-foot-long, 12.5-
kV transmission line; and appurtenant facilities.
    WEC proposes to continue to operate its three turbine units to
replicate near run-of-river operations and continue to maintain its
existing minimum flows both within the bypassed reach (i.e., 3.4 cfs)
and downstream of the powerhouse (i.e., 25 cfs). However, WEC proposes
to modify operations by using its minimum flow gate to release more
flow into the bypassed reach (up to 25 cfs) as generating units are
turned on and off to reduce flow fluctuations downstream of the
powerhouse. WEC also proposes to maintain the reservoir between an
elevation of 634 and 635 feet year-round (rather than operating between
633-635 feet) and would cease all generation when reservoir levels fall
below 634 feet.
    WEC also proposes to bring the following existing facilities into
the project boundary as project structures: The trash racks with one-
inch spacing and the 9.5-foot by 6.5-foot headgate located within the
non-project hydropower bay at the intake; the 1.3-foot by 1.5-foot
automated minimum flow gate located at the base of the wall separating
the two intake chambers used to pass minimum flows to the bypassed
reach; the 100 square-foot hydraulic house located within the dam
housing a hydraulic pump and controls used to operate the project
headgate and minimum flow gate; and the 550-foot-long dirt road used to
access the intake structure.
    m. A copy of the application can viewed on the Commission's website
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    Register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx 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 comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. Procedural schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for filing comments, recommendations,                 3/29/2021
 preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
 fishway prescriptions..................................
Deadline for Filing Reply Comments......................       5/13/2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for
environmental analysis provided for in Sec.  5.22: (1) A copy of the
water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification. Please note that the certification request must be sent
to the certifying authority and to the Commission concurrently.

    Dated: January 28, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02223 Filed 2-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 41 (Thursday, March 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12680-12681]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 539-015]

Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 539-015.
    c. Date filed: April 30, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC (Lock 7 Partners).
    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 Partners,
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 comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final rule on
July 15, 2020, revising the regulations under 40 CFR parts 1500-1518
that federal agencies use to implement NEPA (see Update to the
Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act, 85 FR 43,304). The Final Rule became
effective on and applies to any NEPA process begun after September 14,
2020. An agency may also apply the regulations to ongoing activities
and environmental documents begun before September 14, 2020, which
includes the proposed Mother Ann Lee Project. Commission staff intends
to conduct its NEPA review in accordance with CEQ's new regulations.
    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 feet 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 turbine-generating units with a total installed capacity of 2,210
kilowatts; (6) a 30-foot-long, 15.3-foot-high concrete spillway section
that extends 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.
    Lock 7 Partners proposes to continue operating the project in a
run-of-river mode. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct,
operate, and maintain a canoe portage, fishing access, and parking area
at the Mother Ann Lee Project.
    m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at 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. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for Filing Comments,               April 2021.
 Recommendations, and Agency Terms and
 Conditions/Prescriptions.
Deadline for Filing Reply Comments........  June 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 26, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04466 Filed 3-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60502-60504]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24292]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67942; File No. SR-EDGX-2012-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendment to Rule 2.11

September 27, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 25, 2012, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend Rule 2.11(a)(7) to describe the circumstances under which the
Exchange's routing broker-dealer, Direct Edge ECN LLC d/b/a DE Route
(``DE Route''),\4\ would be authorized to liquidate an error position
resulting from one or more erroneous executions on the Exchange
attributable to a systems, technical or operational issue (referred to
herein as a ``Systems Issue'') experienced by the Exchange. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at the
Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DE Route is a facility of the Exchange. Accordingly, under
Exchange Rule 2.11(a)(1), the Exchange is responsible for filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
rule changes and fees relating to DE Route's outbound router
function, and its authorized functions are limited to those
enumerated in Rule 2.11(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
Background
    DE Route is the approved Outbound Router \5\ of EDGX, subject to
the conditions contained in Rule 2.11. EDGX relies on DE Route to
provide outbound routing services from EDGX to external market centers
(each, a ``Trading Center'' \6\). The Exchange has

also been approved to receive inbound routes of equities orders by DE
Route from EDGA Exchange, Inc. for a pilot period ending on June 30,
2013.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in EDGX Rule 2.11(a). See also, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61698 (March 12, 2010), 75 FR 13151 (March
18, 2010) (order approving the registration of EDGX as a national
securities exchange).
    \6\ As defined in EDGX Rule 2.11(a) and Rule 600(b)(78) of
Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''), 17 CFR 242.600(b)(78).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66644 (March 22,
2012), 77 FR 18877 (March 28, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-09) (extending the
pilot period of the Inbound Router as described in EDGX Rule 2.12(b)
through June 30, 2013). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
64361 (April 28, 2011), 76 FR 25388 (May 4, 2011) (SR-EDGX-2011-12)
(extending the pilot period through June 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the foregoing, DE Route, as well as the Exchange, is
authorized under Rule 2.11(a)(6) to cancel orders when a Systems Issue
occurs, and is authorized under Rule 2.11(a)(7), in connection with its
role as an Outbound Router of EDGX, to maintain an error account for
the purpose of liquidating an error position acquired as a result of a
Systems Issue experienced either by DE Route, the Exchange or a Trading
Center to which DE Route directed an outbound order.\8\ In this regard,
DE Route may only assume such a position in the error account under
documented circumstances when such position could not fairly and
practicably be assigned to one or more Members in its entirety.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67010 (May 17,
2012), 77 FR 30564 (May 23, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-08) (order approving
amendments to Rule 2.11 that establish the Exchange's and DE Route's
authority to cancel orders and describe the operation of an error
account).
    \9\ See EDGX Rule 2.11(a)(7). See also, supra note 8 for a
description of the requirements applicable to DE Route relating,
among other things, to: (i) Determining whether an error position
can be fairly and practicably assigned to one or more Members in its
entirety; and (ii) the manner in which an error position acquired in
the error account shall be liquidated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to Exchange Rule 2.11(a)(7)
    The Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 2.11(a)(7) to describe
the circumstances under which DE Route would be authorized to use the
error account to liquidate an error position resulting from an
erroneous execution on the Exchange that was attributable to a Systems
Issue, and not just an error position acquired in connection with its
role as Outbound Router. In this regard, the proposed rule change would
specify that an error position would not include any position that
resulted from an order submitted by a Member to EDGX that was executed
on EDGX and automatically processed for clearance and settlement on a
locked-in basis. DE Route would not be permitted to: (i) accept a
position in the error account from a Member's account; or (ii) permit
any Member to transfer any position from the Member's account to the
error account. In other words, DE Route would not be permitted to
accept from a Member a position that was delivered to the Member
through the clearance and settlement process, even if such position may
have been related to a Systems Issue on EDGX. If a Member received a
locked-in position in connection with a Systems Issue and experienced a
loss in unwinding such position, that Member would be able to seek
reimbursement from the Exchange in accordance with, and subject to the
limitations of, Exchange Rule 11.12(d), which provides Members with the
ability to file claims against the Exchange ``for losses resulting
directly from the malfunction of the Exchange's physical equipment,
devices and/or programming or the negligent acts or omissions of its
employees.'' If, however, a Systems Issue resulted in the Exchange not
having valid clearing instructions for a Member to a trade, DE Route
would be permitted to assume that Member's side of the trade so that
the trade could be automatically processed for clearance and settlement
on a locked-in basis.
    In the addition to the foregoing, the Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 2.11(a)(7) to clarify that either the Exchange or DE Route, or
both, are authorized to make a determination as to whether an error
position can be fairly and practicably assigned to one or more Members,
or alternatively, to make a determination as to whether an error
position shall be acquired in DE Route's error account to be
liquidated, in either case in accordance with the provisions of Rule
2.11(a)(7).
Circumstances That Could Lead to an Error Position
    An error position may result from a Systems Issue at the Exchange
that does not involve routing of orders through DE Route. For example,
a situation may arise in which a posted quote/order validly cancelled
by the System \10\ erroneously matched that quote/order with an order
that was seeking to access it. In such a situation, DE Route would have
to assume that side of the trade opposite the order seeking to access
the cancelled quote/order. DE Route would post the position in its
error account and resolve the position in the manner described in Rule
2.11(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As defined in EDGX Rule 1.5(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An error position may also result from a Systems Issue whereby the
Exchange does not receive sufficient notice that a Member that has
executed trades on the Exchange has lost the ability to clear trades
through The Depository Trust Clearing Corporation. In such a situation,
the Exchange would not have valid clearing information, which would
prevent the trade from being automatically processed for clearance and
settlement on a locked-in basis. Accordingly, DE Route would assume
that Member's side of the trade so that the counterparty could the
settle the trade. DE Route would post such an error position into its
error account and resolve the position in the manner described in Rule
2.11(a)(7).
    The Exchange notes that this discussion of potential scenarios that
could lead to an error position is for illustrative purposes only and
is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all scenarios.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Moreover, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the Exchange's previous proposal to authorize DE Route
to maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing and
resolving an error position acquired in connection with its role as an
Outbound Router,\13\ the Exchange continues to believe that allowing DE
Route to assume an error position in the error account, and to
liquidate such position in accordance with the conditions set forth in
Rule 2.11(a)(7), is the least disruptive means to resolve an error
position, except where it is fair and practicable for DE Route to
assign the entire amount of such error position to one or more Members
of the Exchange; ensures full trade certainty for market participants;
and avoids disrupting the clearance and settlement process. The
proposed amendment to Rule 2.11(a)(7) would extend these principles to
circumstances where an error position resulted from one or more
erroneous executions on the Exchange due to a

Systems Issue experienced by the Exchange, and not solely under
circumstances where DE Route was acting as the Exchange's Outbound
Router. Thus, regardless whether the error position resulted from an
execution on the Exchange or at a Trading Center,\14\ Rule 2.11(a)(7)
would continue to provide a consistent methodology for handling such
error position in a manner that did not discriminate among Members, and
would continue to require DE Route to establish controls reasonably
designed to restrict the flow of any confidential information
associated with the liquidation of an error position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 8, at 11 [sic].
    \14\ As defined in EDGX Rule 2.11(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\16\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2012-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2012-43. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2012-43 and should be
submitted on or before October 24, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24292 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7485-7488]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2209]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The currently effective community number is shown in the
table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM

and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the
FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Chief executive officer  of                                             Online location of                             Community
          State and county           Location and  case No.             community                   Community map  repository        letter  of map revision  Date of  modification      No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Mohave....................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Buster D.          Mohave County Development Services    https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 21, 2022........       480058
                                      of Mohave County (21-   Johnson, Chairman, Mohave        Department, 3250 East Kino Avenue,    portal/advanceSearch.
                                      09-1303P).              County Board of Supervisors,     Kingman, AZ 86402.
                                                              P.O. Box 7000, Kingman, AZ
                                                              86402.
Florida:
    Charlotte......................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Mr. Bill Truex,    Charlotte County Community,           https://msc.fema.gov/     May. 11, 2022........       120061
                                      of Charlotte County     Chairman, Charlotte County,      Development Department, 18400         portal/advanceSearch.
                                      (21-04-3081P).          Board of Commissioners, 18500    Murdock Circle, Port Charlotte, FL
                                                              Murdock Circle, Suite 536,       33948.
                                                              Port Charlotte, FL 33948.
    Collier........................  City of Marco Island    Mr. Mike McNees, Manager, City   Building Services Department, 50      https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 12, 2022........       120426
                                      (21-04-4573P).          of Marco Island, 50 Bald Eagle   Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Drive, Marco Island, FL 34145.   34145.
    Collier........................  City of Naples (21-04-  The Honorable Teresa Heitmann,   Building Department, 295 Riverside    https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 12, 2022........       125130
                                      4309P).                 Mayor, City of Naples, 735 8th   Circle, Naples, FL 34102.             portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Street South, Naples, FL
                                                              34102.
    Collier........................  City of Naples (21-04-  The Honorable Teresa Heitmann,   Building Department, 295 Riverside    https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 28, 2022........       125130
                                      4737P).                 Mayor, City of Naples, 735 8th   Circle, Naples, FL 34102.             portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Street South, Naples, FL
                                                              34102.
    Lee............................  City of Sanibel (21-04- The Honorable Holly D. Smith,    Community Services Department, 800    https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 22, 2022........       120402
                                      4886P).                 Mayor, City of Sanibel, 800      Dunlop Road, Sanibel, FL 33957.       portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Dunlop Road, Sanibel, FL
                                                              33957.
    Leon...........................  City of Tallahassee     The Honorable John E. Dailey,    Growth Management Department, 435     https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 22, 2022........       120144
                                      (20-04-5259P).          Mayor, City of Tallahassee,      North Macomb Street, Tallahassee,     portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              300 South Adams Street,          FL 32301.
                                                              Tallahassee, FL 32301.
    Leon...........................  Unincorporated areas    Mr. Vincent S. Long, Leon        Leon County Emergency Management      https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 22, 2022........       120143
                                      of Leon County (20-04-  County Administrator, 301        Department, 911 Easterwood Drive,     portal/advanceSearch.
                                      5259P).                 South Monroe Street,             Tallahassee, FL 32311.
                                                              Tallahassee, FL 32301.
    Monroe.........................  City of Marathon, (21-  The Honorable John Bartus,       Planning Department, 9805 Overseas    https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 25, 2022........       120681
                                      04-5079P).              Mayor, City of Marathon, 9805    Highway, Marathon, FL 33050.          portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL
                                                              33050.

    Monroe.........................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Michelle           Monroe County Building Department,    https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 18, 2022........       125129
                                      of Monroe County (21-   Coldiron, Commissioner, Monroe   2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 300,     portal/advanceSearch.
                                      04-4717P).              County Board of Commissioners,   Marathon, FL 33050.
                                                              25 Ships Way, Big Pine Key, FL
                                                              33043.
    Monroe.........................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Michelle           Monroe County Building Department,    https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 21, 2022........       125129
                                      of Monroe County (21-   Coldiron, Commissioner, Monroe   2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 300,     portal/advanceSearch.
                                      04-5803P).              County Board of Commissioners,   Marathon, FL 33050.
                                                              25 Ships Way, Big Pine Key, FL
                                                              33043.
    Orange.........................  City of Ocoee (21-04-   The Honorable Rusty Johnson,     City Hall, 150 North Lakeshore        https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 20, 2022........       120185
                                      4171P).                 Mayor, City of Ocoee, 150        Drive, Ocoee, FL 34761.               portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee,
                                                              FL 34761.
    Polk...........................  Unincorporated areas    Mr. Bill Beasley, Polk County    Polk County Land Development          https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 21, 2022........       120261
                                      of Polk County (21-04-  Manager, 330 West Church         Division, 330 West Church Street,     portal/advanceSearch.
                                      1105P).                 Street, Bartow, FL 33831.        Bartow, FL 33831.
    Polk...........................  Unincorporated areas    Mr. Bill Beasley, Polk County    Polk County Land Development          https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 28, 2022........       120261
                                      of Polk County (21-04-  Manager, 330 West Church         Division, 330 West Church Street,     portal/advanceSearch.
                                      1193P).                 Street, Bartow, FL 33831.        Bartow, FL 33831.
    Sarasota.......................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Alan Maio,         Sarasota County Planning and          https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 20, 2022........       125144
                                      of Sarasota County      Chairman, Sarasota County        Development Services Department,      portal/advanceSearch.
                                      (21-04-4033P).          Board of Commissioners, 1660     1001 Sarasota Center Boulevard,
                                                              Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota,    Sarasota, FL 34240.
                                                              FL 34236.
    Sarasota.......................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Alan Maio,         Sarasota County Planning and          https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 27, 2022........       125144
                                      of Sarasota County      Chairman, Sarasota County        Development Services Department,      portal/advanceSearch.
                                      (22-04-1074P).          Board of Commissioners, 1660     1001 Sarasota Center Boulevard,
                                                              Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota,    Sarasota, FL 34240.
                                                              FL 34236.
Maryland:
    Howard.........................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Calvin Ball,       Howard County Department of Public    https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 15, 2022........       240044
                                      of Howard County (22-   Howard County Executive, 3430    Works, Bureau of Environmental        portal/advanceSearch.
                                      03-0019P).              Court House Drive, Ellicott      Services, 9801 Broken Land Parkway,
                                                              City, MD 21043.                  Columbia, MD 21046.
    Wicomico.......................  Unincorporated areas    Mr. John D. Psota, Acting        Wicomico County Department of         https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 29, 2022........       240078
                                      of Wicomico County      Executive, Wicomico County,      Planning and Zoning, 125 North        portal/advanceSearch.
                                      (21-03-1512P).          P.O. Box 870, Salisbury, MD      Division Street, Room 201,
                                                              21803.                           Salisbury, MD 21801.
Montana:
    Gallatin.......................  City of Belgrade (21-   Mr. Neil Cardwell, Manager,      Planning Department, 91 East Central  https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 11, 2022........       300105
                                      08-0464P).              City of Belgrade, 91 East        Avenue, Belgrade, MT 59714.           portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Central Avenue, Belgrade, MT
                                                              59714.
    Gallatin.......................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Scott MacFarlane,  Gallatin County Department of         https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 11, 2022........       300027
                                      of Gallatin County      Chairman, Gallatin County        Planning and Community Development,   portal/advanceSearch.
                                      (21-08-0464P).          Commission, 311 West Main        311 West Main Street, Room 108,
                                                              Street, Room 306, Bozeman, MT    Bozeman, MT 59715.
                                                              59715
North Dakota: Morton...............  City of Mandan (21-08-  The Honorable Tim Helbling,      Building Inspections Department, 205  https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 25, 2022........       380072
                                      1142P).                 Mayor, City of Mandan, 205 2nd   2nd Avenue Northwest, Mandan, ND      portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Avenue, Northwest, Mandan, ND    58554.
                                                              58554.
Texas:
    Collin.........................  City of McKinney (21-   The Honorable George Fuller,     Engineering Department, 221 North     https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 11, 2022........       480135
                                      06-2216P).              Mayor, City of McKinney, P.O.    Tennessee Street, McKinney, TX        portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Box 517, McKinney, TX 75070.     75069.
    Collin.........................  City of Plano (21-06-   The Honorable John B. Muns,      Engineering Department, 1520 K        https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 11, 2022........       480140
                                      2054P).                 Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 K     Avenue, Plano, TX 75074.              portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Avenue, Plano, TX 75074.
    Potter.........................  City of Amarillo (20-   The Honorable Ginger Nelson,     City Hall, 808 South Buchanan         https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 15, 2022........       480529
                                      06-3803P).              Mayor, City of Amarillo, P.O.    Street, Amarillo, TX 79105.           portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Box 1971, Amarillo, TX 79105.

    Tarrant........................  City of Fort Worth (21- The Honorable Mattie Parker,     Transportation and Public Works       https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 22, 2022........       480596
                                      06-1704P).              Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 200   Department, Engineering Vault, 200    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              Texas Street, Fort Worth, TX     Texas Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.
                                                              76102.
    Williamson.....................  City of Round Rock (21- The Honorable Craig Morgan,      Department of Utilities and           https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 25, 2022........       481048
                                      06-1842P)               Mayor, City of Round Rock, 221   Environmental Services, 3400          portal/advanceSearch.
                                                              East Main Street, Round Rock,    Sunrise Road, Round Rock, TX 78665.
                                                              TX 78664.
    Williamson.....................  Unincorporated areas    The Honorable Bill Gravell,      Williamson County Engineering         https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 25, 2022........       481079
                                      of Williamson County    Jr., Williamson County Judge,    Department, 3151 Southeast Inner      portal/advanceSearch.
                                      (21-06-1842P).          710 South Main Street, Suite     Loop, Georgetown, TX 78626.
                                                              101, Georgetown, TX 78626.
Virginia: Mathews..................  Unincorporated areas    Mr. Sanford B. Wanner, Interim   Mathews County Building Department,   https://msc.fema.gov/     Apr. 29, 2022........       510096
                                      of Mathews County (22-  Administrator, Mathews County,   50 Brickbat Road, Mathews, VA         portal/advanceSearch.
                                      03-0021P).              P.O. Box 839, Mathews, VA        23109.
                                                              23109.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-02731 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[ Sporodex L / 2001 0304 / PLG ] ~ PROTECTED ~ Acute Eye Irritation Study / 1 [ Pseudozyma flocculosa / 2000 0680 / STF] DACO M4. 9 / USEPA OPPTS 870.2500 Reviewer: Esther Seto , Date Feb. 1, 2001 Peer Review: Ibrahim Barsoum, PhD Microbial Pesticides Branch Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency _______________

STUDY TYPE: Primary Eye Irritation  Rabbit PMRA DATA CODE M4.9 / USEPA OPPTS 870.2500 TEST MATERIAL (PURITY): Sporodex WP  2000 formulation 5.7 x 10 8 CFU/ g SYNONYMS: Pseudozyma flocculosa, Sporothrix flocculosa CITATION: Findlay, John. (December, 1999). "Primary Eye Irritation Study of Sporodex." IIT Research Institute, Life Sciences Operation, Chicago, Illinois. Laboratory Project ID 1178 SN1. InLife Study Dates: November 1, 1999  November 8, 1999. Unpublished.

SPONSOR: Université Laval Départment de phytologie Cité universitaire Québec, Canada EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Administration of 0. 1 g of Sporodex WP to the eyes of rabbits resulted in slight conjunctival redness in 5/ 6 animals at the 1 hour scoring interval and in 2/ 6 rabbits at the 24 hour scoring interval. By the 48 hour scoring interval, all signs of ocular irritation had subsided. There were no other adverse clinical symptoms or mortalities during the 7 day observation period. The maximum irritation score (MIS) was 1. 7 at the 1 hour scoring interval and the maximum average score (MAS), over the 24, 48 and 72 hour scoring intervals, was 0. 22. Based on the MAS, Sporodex WP was classified as minimally irritating.

The test substance used in this study was a wettable powder formulation containing a potential ocular irritant (see appendix I). The current formulation, Sporodex L, contains a much lower level of the potential irritant (see appendix II). Therefore, Sporodex L is expected to be less irritating to the eye than Sporodex WP.

This study fulfills the requirements of an acute eye irritation study (OPPTS 870.2400) and is considered acceptable.

COMPLIANCE: Signed and dated GLP and Data Confidentiality statements were provided. A Quality Assurance statement was not included.

A. MATERIALS: [ Sporodex L / 2001 0304 / PLG ] ~ PROTECTED ~ Acute Eye Irritation Study / 2 [ Pseudozyma flocculosa / 2000 0680 / STF] DACO M4. 9 / USEPA OPPTS 870.2500 1. Test Material: Sporodex WP  2000 formulation Description: tan powder Lot/ Batch #: Lot No. CWB1/ 23 08 99 Purity: 5.7 x 10 8 CFU/ g CAS # TGAI: n/ a The titre of the test substance was determined by the Sponsor by using a basic plating technique.

2. Vehicle and/ or positive control: The test substance was applied undiluted.

3. Test animals: Species: Rabbit Strain: New Zealand White Age/ weight at dosing: approximately 11.5 weeks of age at time of dosing 1.90  2. 30 kg at time of receipt body weight not measured on day of dosing Source: Kuiper Rabbit Ranch, Gary, IN. Housing: Animals were individually housed in suspended stainless steel cages. Absorbent cage liners were placed in pans below the floor of each cage to absorb liquids. Diet: Each rabbit was provided with approximately 150g of Certified Purina Lab Rabbit Chow HF #5325 (PMI Feeds, St. Louis, MO) daily. Water: City of Chicago tap water was provided ad libitum. Environmental conditions: temperature: 21.0  22.0  C relative humidity: 34  69% light / dark cycle: 12 hours light / 12 hours dark Acclimation period: Animals were acclimatized for 11 days. Each animal was identified with an ear tag and a cage card.

B. STUDY DESIGN and METHODS:

1. In life dates  start date: November 1, 1999 termination date: November 8, 1999 2. Animal Assignment and Treatment  A single group of 6 female young adult rabbits were selected for treatment. Prior to treatment, animals were evaluated for general health and their eyes were examined for corneal lesions with and without the aid of 2% fluorescein and ultraviolet light. On the day of dosing, 0. 1g of Sporodex WP, containing 5. 7 x 10 7 CFUof Pseudozyma flocculosa, was placed in the everted lower lid of the right eye of each animal and the eyelids were held closed for approximately two seconds. The left eye of each animal served as an untreated control. The treated eye was rinsed with lukewarm water 24 hours after instillation of the test substance.

3. Clinical Observations  All rabbits were observed daily for mortality and moribundity for 7 days following administration of the test substance..

4. Ocular Examinations  At 1, 24, 48, 72 hours, and 4 and 7 days after administration of the test substance, treated and control eyes were graded for ocular lesions according to the criteria of Draize. The cornea was examined for degree and area of opacity; the iris for deepened folds, congestion, swelling, circumcorneal hyperemia and reaction to light; and the conjunctiva for redness, chemosis and discharge. A slit penlight was used in the scoring examination. In order to detect corneal lesions, eyes were examined using fluorescein at the 24 hour scoring interval. [ Sporodex L / 2001 0304 / PLG ] ~ PROTECTED ~ Acute Eye Irritation Study / 3 [ Pseudozyma flocculosa / 2000 0680 / STF] DACO M4. 9 / USEPA OPPTS 870.2500 5. Necropsy  After the final observation, the rabbits were euthanized by anaesthetic overdose using sodium pentobarbital and discarded without necropsy.

II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

A. Clinical Observations  No deaths occurred during the study.

B. Ocular Examinations  Individual eye irritation scores are presented in Table 1. One hour after test material administration, slight conjunctival redness (grade 1  vessels definitely injected above normal) was observed in 5/ 6 animals. By the 24 hour scoring interval, only 2/ 6 animals continued to exhibit slight conjunctival redness. All signs of ocular irritation were absent at the 48 hour scoring interval. Aside frommild redness, no other signs of ocular irritation were observed at any point of the study. Based on the Draize method of determining ocular irritation, the maximumirritation score, occurring at the 1 hour scoring interval, was 1. 7 (out of a possible score of 110) and the maximum average score, calculated over the 24, 48 and 72 hour scoring intervals, was 0. 22.

C. Reviewer's Conclusions  Administration of Sporodex WP to the eyes of rabbits resulted in slight conjunctival redness in 5/ 6 animals at the 1 hour scoring interval and in 2/ 6 rabbits at the 24 hour scoring interval. No other signs of ocular irritation were observed at any point of the study. There were no other adverse clinical symptoms or mortalities during the 7 day observation period. The maximum irritation score was 1. 7 at the 1 hour scoring interval and the maximum average score was 0. 22.

The test substance used in this study was a wettable powder formulation (see appendix I) and its constituent formulation ingredients are expected to be more irritating to the eye than the formulation, Sporodex L (see appendix II), that is currently being submitted for registration. Sporodex WP and, therefore, Sporodex L are considered mildly irritating to the eye and no signal words are required on the label. Standard label statements instructing users to avoid contact with eyes are sufficient.

This study fulfills the requirements of an acute eye irritation study (OPPTS 870.2400) and is considered acceptable.

D. Deficiencies  Data pertaining to the untreated control eyes were not submitted. This information, however, is not critical since severe effects were not noted in the treated eyes. No other major or minor deficiencies were identified. [ Sporodex L / 2001 0304 / PLG ] ~ PROTECTED ~ Acute Eye Irritation Study / 4 [ Pseudozyma flocculosa / 2000 0680 / STF] DACO M4. 9 / USEPA OPPTS 870.2500 Table 1  Individual Eye Irritation Scores Cornea: Density of Opacity (A = Degree of Denisty, B = Area of Cornea Involved)

Scoring Interval 1 hour 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 4 days 7 days Animal No. SexAB AB AB AB AB A B 351F0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 352F0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 353F0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 354F0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 355F0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 356F0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 Iris Scoring Interval Animal No. Sex 1 hour 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 4 days 7 days 351F0 0 00 00 352F0 0 00 00 353F0 0 00 00 354F0 0 00 00 355F0 0 00 00 356F0 0 00 00 Conjunctiva (A = Erythema, B = Chemosis, C = Discharge)

Scoring Interval 1 hour 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 4 days 7 days Animal No. SexABCABCAB CA BC A BCABC [ Sporodex L / 2001 0304 / PLG ] ~ PROTECTED ~ Acute Eye Irritation Study / 5 [ Pseudozyma flocculosa / 2000 0680 / STF] DACO M4. 9 / USEPA OPPTS 870.2500 351F1 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 352F0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 353F1 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 354F1 0 0 10 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 355F1 0 0 10 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 356F1 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 [ Sporodex L / 2001 0304 / PLG ] ~ PROTECTED ~ Acute Eye Irritation Study / 6 [ Pseudozyma flocculosa / 2000 0680 / STF] DACO M4. 9 / USEPA OPPTS 870.2500 Appendix I: Formulation Ingredients for Sporodex WP Ingredient Purpose % Weight Pseudozyma flocculosa active ingredient 2 (1. 5  2. 5)

Arabic Gum coating 82 (80  84)

Lactose stabilizer 5.5 (3. 7  8)

Silicon Dioxide dispersing agent 1.5 (0. 74  3)

Water diluent 9 (5  10)

Total 100 [ Sporodex L / 2001 0304 / PLG ] ~ PROTECTED ~ Acute Eye Irritation Study / 7 [ Pseudozyma flocculosa / 2000 0680 / STF] DACO M4. 9 / USEPA OPPTS 870.2500 Appendix II: Formulation Ingredients for Sporodex L Ingredient Purpose % Weight Pseudozyma flocculosa active ingredient 1. 3 (0. 5  3. 0)

Arabic Gum coating 14. 5 (12  17)

Lactose stabilizer 1. 5 (1  2)

Silicon Dioxide dispersing agent 0. 5 (0. 2  0. 8)

Water diluent 82.2 (75  88)

Total 100


[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 53987-53988]
[DOCID:fr02se10-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15Bc3-1 and Form MSDW; SEC File No. 270-93; OMB Control No.
3235-0087.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection provided for in Rule 15Bc3-1 (17 CFR
240.15Bc3-1) and Form MSDW (17 CFR 249.1110) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 15Bc3-1 provides that a notice of withdrawal from registration
with the Commission as a bank municipal securities dealer must be filed
on Form MSDW. The Commission uses the information submitted on Form
MSDW in determining whether it is in the public interest to permit a
bank municipal securities dealer to withdraw its registration. This
information is also important to the municipal securities dealer's
customers and to the public, because it provides, among other things,
the name and address of a person to contact regarding any of the
municipal securities dealer's unfinished business.
    The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to
comply with the requirements of Rule 15Bc3-1 is 0.5 hours. Based upon
submissions for the last three years, the staff estimates that
approximately 12 respondents will utilize this notice annually, with a
total burden for all respondents of 6 hours. The average cost per hour
is approximately $101. Therefore, the total cost of compliance for the
respondents is $606 ($101 x 0.5 x 12 = $606).
    Providing the information on the application is mandatory in order
to register with the Commission as a bank municipal securities dealer.
The information contained in the application will not be kept
confidential. Persons should note that an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: Sagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: August 27, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2010-21936 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39073-39074]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0713]

Notice of Interim Operating Authority Granted to Commercial Air
Tour Operators Over National Parks and Tribal Lands Within or Abutting
National Parks

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On October 25, 2002, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
published the final rule for Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part
136, National Parks Air Tour Management (67 FR 65662). The rule became
effective on January 23, 2003. On January 27, 2005, the FAA published a
notice of opportunity for commercial air tour operators granted interim
operating authority (IOA) under the National Parks Air Tour Management
Act of 2000 (the Act) to review and self correct annual authorizations
(70 FR 3972). The results were published by operator in the Federal
Register on Thursday, June 23, 2005, (70 FR 36456). The comment due
date was set for 70 FR 36456 and the IOA republished in the Federal
Register on Friday, October 7, 2005 by park instead of by operator (70
FR 58778). This Notice is pursuant to the review and accepting of five
(5) New Entrant applications and seeks public comment regarding this
matter from interested parties.

DATES: Comments must be received by the FAA by August 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-0713
using the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norman R. Elrod, Air Transportation
Division, 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-250, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or, Edwin D.
Miller, Air Transportation Division, 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch,
AFS-250, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Provision(s) for new entrant air tour operators are specified in
Section 803 of

the Act under (c) Interim Operating Authority, (3) New entrant air tour
operators (A), (B), & (C). The five new entrants seeking IOA are listed
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               National park
         Operator name              DBA        unit/Abutting      IOA
                                                tribal land
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kanab, Utah Air Service.......  NA.........  Zion NP.........        120
                                             Bryce Canyon NP.        120
                                             Rainbow Bridge          120
                                              NM.
                                             Canyon Lands NP.        120
                                             Arches NP.......        120
                                             Cedar Breaks NM.        120
Mauiscape Helicopters.........  NA.........  Haleakala NP....      4,140
Skycraft Air Service..........  NA.........  Volcanoes NP....        600
Wings Air.....................  NA.........  Statue of             1,500
                                              Liberty NM.
Zip Aviation..................  NA.........  Statue of            12,000
                                              Liberty NM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The operators cited above applied for New Entrant IOA between
January of 2003 and November 2005. The FAA, having evaluated the
applications, is now prepared to move forward with the application
process. This notice fulfills that statutory requirement that mandates
the IOA granted under the Act to be published in the Federal Register
for notice and opportunity for comment.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2008.
Gary Davis,
Air Transportation Division, Acting Manager of AFS-200.
 [FR Doc. E8-15441 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P