[Federal Register: June 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 28235]
[DOCID:fr15jn09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-429-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

June 9, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 8, 2009, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas
77056, filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and
157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
for authorization to abandon, pursuant to Columbia Gulf's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-496-000, certain offshore natural
gas facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application, which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the Web 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Columbia Gulf proposes to abandon approximately 5.5
miles of 16-inch pipeline (Segment 8310), Measuring Station 689, and
appurtenances. Columbia Gulf states that Segment 8310 begins at the
Garden Banks 236A platform and extends to a sub-sea interconnection at
Garden Banks 149 in offshore Louisiana. Columbia Gulf asserts that
Section 8310 will be abandoned in place and will be designated by the
Mineral Management Service (MMS) as Segment 17594. Columbia
Gulf states that Measuring Station 689 will be removed. Columbia Gulf
asserts that production into the subject pipeline ceased in July of
2003, at which time Chevron notified Columbia Gulf that its production
had been depleted and that it had no plans for future development.
Columbia Gulf avers that the pipeline has been inactive since that
time. Columbia Gulf states that Chevron has since notified Columbia
Gulf that it intended to abandon its Garden Banks 236A platform to
which the pipeline is connected. Columbia Gulf asserts that it does not
propose the abandonment of any service as a result of the proposed
abandonment nor does Columbia Gulf have any firm contracts utilizing
the pipeline. Columbia Gulf estimates the costs of abandoning the
pipeline to be approximately $3 million.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
counsel for Columbia Gulf, Fredric J. George, Senior Counsel, P. O. Box
1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14027 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43535]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1023-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 09/5/17 Negotiated Rates--DTE
Energy Trading, Inc. R-1830-14 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20170905-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1024-000.
    Applicants: Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-conforming Agreement--Duke
Contract No. 850002 to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20170905-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1025-000.
    Applicants: Dogwood Energy, LLC, Kansas Municipal Energy Agency.
    Description: Request for Waiver and Expedited Action of Dogwood
Energy, LLC, et. al. and Kansas Municipal Energy Agency.
    Filed Date: 9/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20170905-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19723 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18227]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07581]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2014-0845; FRL-9924-12-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Final Authorization for Hazardous Waste
Management Programs (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Final Authorization for
Hazardous Waste Management Programs (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0969.10,
OMB Control No. 2050-0041) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 73575) on
December 11, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows
for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of
the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. 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 OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2014-0845, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Roepe, mail code 5303P,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 703-
308-8638; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: In order for a State to obtain final authorization for a
State hazardous waste program or to revise its previously authorized
program, it must submit an official application to the EPA Regional
office for approval. The purpose of the application is to enable the
EPA to properly determine whether the State's program meets the
requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sec.
3006. A State with an approved program may voluntarily transfer program
responsibilities to EPA by notifying the EPA of the proposed transfer,
as required by section 40 CFR 271.23. Further, the EPA may withdraw a
State's authorized program under section 271.23.
    The State shall inform the EPA of any proposed modifications to its
basic statutory or regulatory authority in accordance with section
271.21. If a State is proposing to transfer all or any part of a
program from the approved State agency to any other agency, it must
notify the EPA in accordance with section 271.21 and submit revised
organizational charts as required under section 271.6. These paperwork
requirements are mandatory under RCRA Sec.  3006(a). The EPA will use
the information submitted by the State in order to determine whether
the State's program meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for
authorization.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA Sec.  3006(a)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 50 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 13,860 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $499,001 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 6,108 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This change is due to a decrease of 8 respondents
submitting a program change to EPA.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-07581 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Organic Arsenic Herbicides Reader =

s Guide 1 Reader =

s Guide to the Organic Arsenic Herbicides E Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2006 0201 EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the organic arsenic herbicides E Docket. The docket index groups related documents. The Agency is providing this A Reader =

s Guide @

to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the items contained in the organic arsenic herbicides e docket.

Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Item 1. Federal Register Notice: Organic Arsenic Herbicides Risk Assessments, Notice of Availability, and Risk Reduction Options ( Phase 3 of 4 Phase Process)

This document formally and publicly announces the organic arsenic herbicides risk assessments are available for review on the internet or at the EPA =

s Office of Pesticides Programs =

Public Docket and solicits comments and suggestions on the risk assessments and how to mitigate or address potential risks of concern.

Docket Item 2. Reader =

s Guide to the organic arsenic herbicides E Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2006 0201.

This document. It is designed to annotate all the documents in the organic arsenic herbicides EDocket

Docket Item 3. Background and Issues to Consider in Commenting on the Preliminary Risk Assessments for the Organic Arsenic Herbicides This March 2006 document presents a summary of the science issues associated with the organic arsenic herbicides to help the public understand EPA's risk assessments and also presents a list of questions to potentially address uncertainties and aid the Agency in making its reregistration eligibility decision.

Docket Item 4. Health Effects Division ( HED) Human Health Risk Assessment This March 2006 document summarizes the potential human health risks from occupational, residential, and dietary exposure to the organic arsenic herbicides. This document also includes a discussion of the potential ecological risks and effects of the organic arsenic herbicides. Organic Arsenic Herbicides Reader =

s Guide 2 Docket Item 5. Health Effects Division ( HED) Occupational and Residential Exposure Risk Assessment This March 2006 document summarizes the potential human health risks from occupational and residential exposure to the organic arsenic herbicides.

Docket Item 6. Organic Arsenicals. Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED).

This February 2006 document summarizes the potential risks from dietary ( food + water) exposure to the organic arsenic herbicides.

Docket Item 7. Revised and updated executive summaries for Cacodylic acid ( Dimethylarsinic acid) and Methanearsonic Acid and the relevant sodium and calcium salts.

This February 2006 document summarizes the relevant toxicity studies for cacodylic acid, MSMA, DSMA, and CAMA used in the Agency =

s preliminary risk assessments.

Docket Item 8. Organic Arsenic Drinking Water Assessment This March 2006 document summarizes the potential contribution to drinking water from the use of the organic arsenic herbicides.

Docket Item 9. Addendum to EFED RED Chapters for Organic Arsenicals Accounting for Updated Label Rates and Potential for Long Term Buildup in Soil This February 2006 document updates the September 2001 and March 2000 ecological risk documents ( Docket Items 10 and 11) for the organic arsenic herbicides.

Docket Item 10. Ecological Risk Assessment This September 2001 document summarizes the potential ecological risks from the use of the organic arsenic herbicide MSMA, DSMA, and CAMA.

Docket Item 11. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SCIENCE CHAPTER FOR CACODYLIC ACID AND ITS SODIUM SALT Organic Arsenic Herbicides Reader =

s Guide 3 This March 2000 document summarizes the potential ecological risks from the use of the organic arsenic herbicide cacodylic acid.

Docket Item 12. Revised Science Issue Paper: Mode of Carcinogenic Action for Cacodylic Acid ( Dimethylarsinic Acid, DMAV) and Recommendations for Dose Response Extrapolation This March 2006 document presents EPA =

s position on the mode of action for cacodylic acid.

Docket Item 13. MAATF A Error Only @

Comments to EPA =

s Preliminary Risk Assessments This March 2006 document presents the MAA Research Task Force =

s comments on EPA =

s preliminary risk assessments for the organic arsenic herbicides.

Docket Item 14. Albaugh, Inc. A Error Only @

Comments to EPA =

s Preliminary Risk Assessments This March 2006 document presents Albaugh, Inc.= s comments on EPA =

s preliminary risk assessments for the organic arsenic herbicides.

Docket Item 15. Meeting Summary: EPA/ MAATF Organic Arsenical Herbicides SAB Follow Up Meeting, December 19, 2005 This January 2006 document summarizes a December 19, 2005 meeting with the MAATF to discuss issues coming out of the September 2005 arsenic SAB.

Docket Item 16. MAATF =

s Response to EPA Questions of November 18, 2005 This November 2005 document presents answers to EPA questions submitted to the MAATF on November 18, 2005.

Docket Item 17. MAATF Proposed Master Labels This December 2005 submission presents the MAATF =

s proposed Master Labels for MSMA, DSMA, CAMA, and cacodylic acid.. Organic Arsenic Herbicides Reader =

s Guide 4 Docket Item 18. MAATF =

s Response to EPA Questions of November 3, 2005 This November 2005 document presents answers to EPA questions submitted to the MAATF on November 3, 2005.

Docket Item 19. MAATF =

s Response to EPA Questions of March 14, 2005 This September 2005 document presents answers to EPA environmental fate questions submitted to the MAATF on March 14, 2005.

Docket Item 20. MAATF =

s Response to EPA =

s DMA Mode of Action Paper ( Docket Item 12)

This September 2005 document presents the MAATF =

s response to EPA =

s draft A Science Issue Paper: Mode of Carcinogenic Action for Cacodylic Acid ( Dimethylarsinic Acid, DMAV) and Recommendations for Dose Response Extrapolation @

document.

Docket Item 21. The Environmental Fate of Monosodium Methanearsonate ( MSMA): A Review of Important Processes This February 2005 document presents a the MAATF =

s interpretation of the available data for the environmental fate of MSMA.

Docket Item 22: Slides from the MAATF/ EPA January 14, 2004 meeting This document contains the slides presented at a January 14, 2004 meeting between EPA and the MAATF.

Docket Item 23: Inorganic arsenic  Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee, August 21, 2001 This August 2001 document presents the findings of EPA =

s HIARC committee for inorganic arsenic.

Docket Item 24: Letter from Lynn L. Bergeson, March 27, 2006 Organic Arsenic Herbicides Reader =

s Guide 5 This is a letter from Lynn L. Bergeson, who represents the MAA Research Task Force. The letter requests the Agency not open the Phase 3 public comment period and asks EPA not to make the organic arsenic risk assessments available to the public.

Docket Item 25: EPA's April 3, 2006 Response to Letter from Lynn L. Bergeson, March 27, 2006 This is a letter from Debra Edwards, Ph. D., Director of EPA's Special Review and Reregistration Division in response to the March 27, 2006 letter from Lynn L. Bergeson ( Docket Item 24).


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Amy Hambrick, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

FROM:	David Hendricks, EC/R, Inc.

DATE:	April 18, 2016

SUBJECT:	Summary of the February 9, 2016, Meeting with the Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I.	INTRODUCTION

Several environmental groups, the Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council, requested this meeting with EPA to present an overview of their comments on the September 18, 2015 proposed Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS (80 FR 56593) This summary addresses those comments and other concerns regarding this action.

II.	ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bruce Moore
Gerri Garwood
Eric Goehl
Brenda Shine
Penny Lassiter
Amy Hambrick
Lisa Thompson
Elizabeth Miller
David Cozzie (by phone)
Alex McPherson (by phone)
Jodi Howard (by phone)
Charlene Spells (by phone)
Susie Waltzer (by phone)

Environmental Groups
Peter Zalzal, Environmental Defense Fund
Meleah Geertsma, Natural Resources Defense Council
David McCabe, Clean Air Task Force
Briana Mordick, Natural Resources Defense Council

EC/R Incorporated
David Hendricks (by phone)

III.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Bruce Moore opened the meeting and explained to the attendees that because the EPA is in the post-proposal phase of the NSPS and CTG, EPA personnel would listen to their comments but cannot respond to any of the issues raised. However, the EPA welcomed the comments. The attendees offered the following comments.

NSPS Proposal
 LDAR
 Asserted that, according to the latest scientific findings, use of LDAR is more cost effective than EPA projections.
 Stated there is a growing consensus that emissions from super emitters are not reflected in the inventory; if added, would increase LDAR cost effectiveness.
 Studies suggest super emitters shift in time/space, it is not necessarily the same 20% of facilities that account for most emissions at any one point in time, the facilities making up that 20% can vary.
 Stated that there is no predicting what sites will be super emitters.
 Believed that an average emission factor approach makes the sense most, but this approach needs to incorporate these other sources, like super emitters, which are not reflected in EPA's average. For example, the Fort Worth study showed that 50% of the emissions came from tanks, which were not included in EPA's average facility.
 Noted a transmission source study that found 23% of emissions were attributable to unexplained events.
 Stated LDAR should be comprehensive and along 2 dimensions in terms of facilities that are covered and components at those facilities. Believed EPA's proposal does a good job, just needs a couple of improvements.
 Regarding facility in the gathering and storage (G&S) segment, noted that a subset of facilities have dehydrators without compressors or storage tanks that are associated with significant emissions. Believed the rule should include coverage of such G&S facilities.
 Believed the definition of fugitive emission component captures a lot and should be finalized.
 Regarding intermittent pneumatic controllers, noted that it can be difficult to use IR cameras but intermittent controllers can malfunction and bleed continuously, as found in the Fort Worth study. Therefore, intermittent pneumatic controllers should be included in the definition.
 Expressed that average facility emissions are bigger than what EPA has predicted, so more frequent quarterly monitoring would be more cost effect. Noted a State of Colorado rulemaking in which environmental groups showed how carbon limits data showed cost effectiveness did not change over the years.
 Expressed concern that incentives created by a setback program creates an incentive to not find leaks.
 Stated that AVO has value but noted that quite a few leaks are hard to locate unless a camera is used.
 Believed that OGI is superior to M21 because, while M21 may find leak in general, it cannot pinpoint its location and allow for a repair.

 LDAR Approach
 Expressed their support for allowance of innovation pathways.
 Pointed to Colorado's Rule 7 tiered approach and believed that a tiered approach is most closely tied to the data and that a quarterly approach also has a simplicity.
 Stated that a component approach could be more stringent but that it would also be more arbitrary.
 Pointed to the BLM as having a setback approach that seems to be more stringent than EPA's approach and believed this could be problematic.
 Expressed that it would be inappropriate to continue to exempt low VOC components at gas processing plants from LDAR requirements.

 15 BOE
 Concerned that those sites operated at less than 15 bpd can still be high emitters according to their data (shown in slide). Asserted that many of the wells with the highest emissions fall in the less than 5 bpd category. Thus, these well sites should not be exempted as they are not low emitting and should be surveyed.
 Noted that the PTE approach would be something they might be more comfortable with.
 Noted that to their knowledge the 15 BOE approach is not currently being used by any states.

 Geographic and logistical concerns
 Asserted that most facilities are not isolated, therefore, cost of travel to conduct LDAR is not an issue.
 Noted that firms with multiple wells also operate with an economy of scale.
 Believed that use of OGI allows sites to be checked rapidly.
 Noted that small wells are owned fairly equally between small and large operators.

 LDAR Cost Effectiveness
 Offered a slide presentation of ICF's cost analysis study.
 Noted that the results ICF's study showed that you will find more leaks if you look more frequently.
 Expressed that 5-year study of monthly LDAR proved to be 75-80% cost effective on payback.
 Expressed the environmental performance checks based on a quarterly vs annual basis showed that quarterly showed a 20-30% greater emission reduction over annual.
 In summary, noted that study showed that LDAR was highly cost effective, with substantial emission reductions.

 Modifications.
 Stated that EPA should clarify that well workovers are the same as completions and should be considered modifications.
 Noted that a workover has the same attributes as a completion with hydraulic fracturing. Same physical change, with subpart W emissions associated with that, and an emission increase, thus fitting within the definition of a modification.
 Asserted that acidizing and perforating and making any physical changes to a well can increase emissions. Thus, these events should also meet the statutory definition of a modification.

 Equipment Issues
 Expressed that, in general, supported approach for pneumatic pumps/pneumatic compressors, although for pneumatic pumps suggested the rule be extended to say that you must capture any gas that you can and route emissions to a tank with a VRU in place.
 Suggested EPA clarify that if there is a way to route to a process via VRU or a compression option or a fuel option for reciprocating compressors, then that would be the preferred onsite requirement, with option 2 being routing to a control device, and option 3 being to minimize emissions.
 Supported the EPA approach taken for pumps; although pumps were not their highest priority, they supported venting to an existing control device. Stated that, based on their knowledge, there are a lot of sites with control devices (because of subpart OOOO control of storage vessels).
 Inquired about comments received regarding pumps with EPA noting that some commenters requested that portable/occasional pumps have a requirement for applicability cutoffs (e.g., based on hours of operation). Asserted that, to their knowledge, there are no metering devices currently on the market available for this.
 In response to EPA question regarding any analyses to indicate that control of pumps is cost effective, noted they assume costs would be low because of the availability of control devices onsite (information supports that a lot of sites have onsite control). Supported use of VRU as control.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37459-37461]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-2834]

Extension of Certain Tobacco Product Compliance Deadlines Related
to the Final Deeming Rule; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Extension of Certain
Tobacco Product Compliance Deadlines Related to the Final Deeming
Rule.'' This guidance is intended to assist persons who manufacture,
package, sell, offer to sell, distribute, or import for sale and
distribution within the United States newly regulated tobacco products,
roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco, and cigarette tobacco in complying with
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by
the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control
Act), and FDA regulations.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-D-2834 for ``Extension of Certain Tobacco Product Compliance
Deadlines Related to the Final Deeming Rule.'' Received comments will
be placed in

the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document
Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which
the guidance document may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for information on electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerie Voss, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Extension of Certain Tobacco Product Compliance Deadlines
Related to the Final Deeming Rule.'' This guidance is intended to
assist persons who manufacture, package, sell, offer to sell,
distribute, or import for sale and distribution within the United
States newly regulated tobacco products, RYO tobacco, and cigarette
tobacco in complying with the FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco
Control Act, and FDA regulations. We are issuing this guidance
consistent with our good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (section
10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). We are implementing this guidance without
prior public comment, because we have determined that prior public
participation is not feasible or appropriate (section 10.115(g)(2)). We
made this determination because FDA needs to communicate the extensions
in a timely manner given the upcoming compliance deadlines and the
amount of time needed for firms to prepare for them. Although this
guidance document is immediately effective, it remains subject to
comment in accordance with FDA's GGP regulation.
    The Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31) granted FDA the authority
to immediately regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of
cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, and smokeless tobacco products to
protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
    The Tobacco Control Act also gave FDA the authority to issue a
regulation deeming all other products that meet the statutory
definition of a tobacco product to be subject to Chapter IX of the FD&C
Act (section 901(b) (21 U.S.C. 387a(b)) of the FD&C Act). On May 10,
2016, FDA issued that rule, extending FDA's tobacco product authority
to all products that meet the definition of tobacco product in the law
(except for accessories of newly regulated tobacco products), including
electronic nicotine delivery systems, cigars, hookah, pipe tobacco,
nicotine gels, dissolvables that were not already subject to the FD&C
Act, and other tobacco products that may be developed in the future (81
FR 28974 at 28976) (``the final deeming rule'')). Chapter IX of the
FD&C Act now applies to newly regulated tobacco products, including
sections 904(a)(1) and (4) (21 U.S.C.387d(a)(1) and (4)) (ingredient
listing, health document submissions), 903(a)(4) and (a)(8) (21 U.S.C.
387c(a)(4) and (a)(8)) (labeling requirements), 904(c)(1), 905(b), (c),
(d), (h) (registration), (21 U.S.C. 387e(b), (c), (d), (h)) 905(i)(1)
(product listing), 907(a)(1)(B) (21 U.S.C. 387g(a)(1)(B)) (additional
special rule), 911 (21 U.S.C. 387k) (modified risk claims), 904(a)(3)
and 915 (21 U.S.C. 387o) (harmful and potentially harmful constituent
reporting), and 920 (21 U.S.C. 387t) (labeling, recordkeeping, records
inspection). The final rule also included several requirements that
apply to a subgroup of products referred to as ``covered tobacco
products.''
    In May 2017, FDA published the first edition of this guidance
document, under which it provided a 3-month extension of all future
compliance deadlines for requirements under the final deeming rule.
This guidance is the second edition, and it revises and updates the
first edition by further extending certain of the future compliance
dates.
    The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic.
It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on
FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This
guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information. These collections of information are subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in
section 910(c)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR part 1143 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0768; the collections of
information in section 905(j) of the FD&C Act have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0673; the collections of information in section
904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number
0910-0654; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 1107 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0684; the collections of
information in section 904(c)(1), 905(b),(c),(d), (h),and 905(i)(1) of
the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0650.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain an electronic
version of the guidance at either https://www.regulations.gov or
https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

    Dated: August 4, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-16839 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71587]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-445-000]

Badger Creek Limited; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Badger Creek Limited's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is December 17, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29085 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30340-30341]
[DOCID:fr25my11-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14150-000]

Reliable Storage 1 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of hydropower near the town of Sparta, on Wildcat
Creek, in White County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed pumped storage project would consist of the following:
(1) A 70-foot-high, 7,500-foot-long earth embankment dam; (2) an upper
reservoir with a surface area of 100 acres and an 7,100 acre-foot
storage capacity; (3) a 120-foot-high, 7,430-foot-long earth embankment
dam creating; (4) a lower reservoir with a surface area of 101 acres
and an 7,594 acre-foot storage capacity; (5) one 30-foot-diameter,
6,800-foot-long penstock; (6) a bifurcation to three penstocks each 16-
foot-diameter, and 100-foot-long; (7) an underground powerhouse/pumping
station containing three pump/generating units with a total generating
capacity of 700 megawatts; (8) a 30-foot-diameter, 1,200-foot-long
tailrace tunnel; (9) a 24-foot-diameter, 1,000-foot-long access tunnel;
(10) a substation; and (11) a 16-mile-long, 500 kV transmission line to
an existing distribution line. The proposed project would have an
average annual generation of 1,600,000 megawatt-hours

(MWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irvin, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street Suite 300, Boston MA 01244; phone
(978) 252-7631.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14150-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12872 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71181-71182]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0389; FMCSA-2012-0294; FMCSA-2013-0109; FMCSA-
2013-0442]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 11
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before November
14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0389; FMCSA-2012-0294;
FMCSA-2013-0109; FMCSA-2013-0442 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person:

    Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.

    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
    The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders prohibition in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly,
FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and
decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)

and 31315, each of the 11 applicants has satisfied the conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorder
requirements and were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 70917;
79 FR 73690; 79 FR 23054). In addition, for Commercial Driver's License
(CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License information System
(CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are
searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency
reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency
(SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate
commerce.
    The 11 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the
Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited
any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely
operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. FMCSA has
concluded that renewing the exemptions for each of these applicants is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to renew each exemption for a
two-year period. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each
driver has received a renewed exemption.
    As of April 8, 2016, the following four individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), from driving CMVs
in interstate commerce (79 FR 70917; 79 FR 23054): Jeffrey Ballweg
(WI); Michael Ranalli (PA); Lonnie Reicker (IL); and Jay Whitehead
(NY). These drivers were included in FMCSA-2011-0389; and FMCSA-2012-
0294; FMCSA-2013-0109. The exemptions were effective on April 8, 2016,
and will expire on April 8, 2018.
    As of April 23, 2016, the following seven individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), from
driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 73690):

Charles Blood (NY)
Raymond Lobo (NJ)
Randy Pinto (PA)
Brent Robinson (NC)
James Spece (PA)
Douglas Teigland (MN)
Joseph Thomas (MD)

    These drivers were included in FMCSA-2013-0442. The exemptions were
effective on April 23, 2016, and will expire on April 23, 2018.
    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

IV. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

V. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the Epilepsy
and Seizure Disorders requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: October 7, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-24967 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 40721]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17246]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. TS10-1-001]

Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 20, 2011, Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC
filed a request for continued waiver of the Commission's Standards of
Conduct requirements of Part 358 and Order No. 889, pursuant to the
Commission's April 21, 2011 Order, Black Hills Power, Inc., et al., 135
FERC ] 61,058 (2011) (April 21 Order).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 11, 2011.

    Dated: July 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17246 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P