                              \s \* MERGEFORMAT
         	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                    		WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                                                OFFICE OF WATER

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Estimated cost and benefit impacts resulting from a delay of the compliance date of the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions

FROM:	Erik C. Helm, Senior Economist
            Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

TO:	LCRR Docket: EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300

The following memorandum documents the impact to the estimated annualized societal costs and monetized benefits from a delay in the compliance date for the regulatory requirement of the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021.

Background

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued the "Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis." (The White House, 2021a) (EO 13990). Section 2 of EO 13990 directs the heads of all agencies to immediately review regulations that may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the policy set forth in Section 1 of EO 13990. In the January 20, 2021 White House "Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review," the "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions" (LCRR) is specifically identified as an agency action that will be reviewed in conformance with EO 13990 (The White House, 2021b). Also on January 20, 2021, Ronald A. Klain, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies entitled, "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review" (The White House, 2021c); the memorandum directs agencies to consider postponing the effective date of regulations that have been published in the Federal Register, but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy the rules may raise.

Consistent with Executive Order 13990 and the "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review" memorandum, EPA decided to review the LCRR, which was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021. EPA  published a final rule on March 12, 2021 [86 FR 14003], which provided for a short delay of the LCRR's effective date to June 17, 2021, to allow the agency to seek comment on the proposal to extend the effective date further to December 16, 2021, allowing the agency adequate time to conduct a thorough review of the complex set of LCRR requirements to assess whether the regulatory changes are inconsistent with, or presents obstacles to, the policy set forth in Section 1 of the EO 13990, and to consult with stakeholders, including those who have been historically underserved by, or subject to discrimination in, Federal policies and programs prior to the LCRR going into effect. In the proposal, EPA also sought comment on an extension of the compliance dates by nine months from January 16, 2024, to Sept. 16, 2024 (86 FR 14063; March 12, 2021).

Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act specifies that drinking water regulations shall generally take effect (i.e., require compliance) three years after the date the regulation is promulgated. This 3-year period is used by states to adopt laws and regulations in order to obtain primary enforcement responsibility for the rule and by water systems to take any necessary actions to meet the compliance deadlines in the rule. As proposed, EPA would be extending the January 16, 2024, compliance date in the LCRR by nine months, to correspond to the delay in the effective date. EPA set the compliance date, to provide a full nine month delay, to maintain the same time period between the effective date and the compliance date in the LCRR, published on January 15, 2021. EPA expects that the duration of the compliance date extension will provide drinking water systems with adequate time to take actions needed to assure compliance with the LCRR after it takes effect.

Estimation of the Impact to Social Monetized Costs and Benefits from a Nine Month Delay of the LCRR Compliance Date

EPA's Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020)(final rule EA) estimated that the annual total monetized costs of the regulatory requirements, in 2016 dollars, would range from $161 to $335 million at the 3 percent discount rate, and $167 to $372 million at the 7 percent discount rate. These values are shown in Exhibit 1. The monetized costs of the rule primarily represent the implementation costs of the regulatory requirements of the rule for both water systems and State regulators. EPA also estimated the additional removal cost of sewage treatment plants as a result of increased phosphorus loadings. Note that EPA did not monetize the environmental impacts of increase phosphorus loads to surface waters. At the national level, these additional quantities of phosphorous loadings are small, only 0.1 percent of the total phosphorous load deposited annually from all other sources. However, national average load impacts may obscure significant localized ecological impacts. These localized impacts, such as eutrophication, may occur in water bodies without restrictions on phosphate deposits, or in locations with existing elevated phosphate levels.

The annual total monetized benefits, in 2016 dollars, of the final rule were estimated to be between $223 to $645 million, at a 3 percent discount rate, and $39 to $119 million at the 7 percent discount rate. These values are shown in Exhibit 1. The monetized benefits represent annual intelligence quotient (IQ) point decrements avoided in children up to age seven in homes with lead service lines. EPA did not monetize impacts from multiple adverse health effects due to lead exposure that are expected to decrease as a result of the final LCRR. These adverse health effects are summarized in Appendix D, of the final rule EA, and are expected for both children and adults. In Appendix D, six categories of adverse health effects associated with lead exposures are summarized. These include: cardiovascular effects (both morbidity and mortality effects; Section D.1), renal effects (Section D.2), reproductive and developmental effects (Section D.3), immunological effects (Section D.4), neurological effects (Section D.7), and cancer (Section D.8). Additionally, the adverse health effects associated with copper that are expected to be reduced by the final LCRR are summarized in Appendix E, of the final rule EA.

Exhibit 1: LCRR Final Rule Annualized Incremental Costs and Benefits (2016$)

                                 Discount Rate
                               Low Cost Scenario
                              High Cost Scenario
Annualized Incremental Costs
                                      3%
                                 $160,571,000
                                 $335,481,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits

                                 $223,344,000
                                 $645,276,000
Annualized Incremental Costs
                                      7%
                                 $167,333,000
                                 $372,460,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits

                                 $39,353,000
                                 $119,102,000
Note: Values come from the Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020) Exhibits 7-5 and 7-6

These annualized cost and benefit estimates represent a stream of values which occur over the 35 year period of analysis used for the assessment of the regulatory impacts. The delay of the original compliance date, of January 16, 2024, by nine months pushes away in time both the cost born by complying entities and the monetized benefits received by the public, as a result of lower lead levels in drinking water, by nine months, assuming all other environmental and regulatory conditions remain the same. The extension of the compliance date affects both the streams of costs and benefits from the LCRR, delaying those streams by one year which produces a decrease in the net present value of both the cost and benefit streams.

Because the economic models used (Safewater LCR) to estimate the cost and benefits of the final LCRR operate on an annual time step, to estimate the potential annualized impact of the delay in the compliance date, EPA selected the conservative assumption of delaying the regulatory costs and benefits by one year in the model. The actual calculation of the impacts of this delay of the LCRR for one year does not require the Agency to re-estimate the LCRR Safewater model. Computationally, EPA used the estimated annualized total incremental cost and benefit values, presented in Exhibit 1, to represent the constant annual value of both costs and benefits in each year of the 35 year period of analysis for the final LCRR. Using Microsoft Excel's net present value (NPV) and payment (PMT) financial functions EPA both verified the baseline LCRR final rule annual values and computed the impact of a one year, or one period, delay in the costs and benefits of the proposed extension of the LCRR compliance date. See the calculations in file, "Calculating Cost and Benefit Impact of Delaying LCRR Compliance Date.xlsx," in the docket at EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300 at www.regulations.gov.

Exhibit 2: LCRR Final Rule Annualized Incremental Costs and Benefits Including a One-Year Delay in Compliance Date (2016$)

                                 Discount Rate
                               Low Cost Scenario
                              High Cost Scenario
Annualized Incremental Costs
                                      3%
                                 $153,316,000
                                 $320,323,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits

                                 $213,252,000
                                 $616,120,000
Annualized Incremental Costs
                                      7%
                                 $155,255,000
                                 $345,575,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits

                                 $36,512,000
                                 $110,505,000
Note: Calculations are provided in file "XXX.xlsx" in the docket at EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300 at www.regulations.gov

The estimated annual total incremental cost of the rule given the one year delay, ranged from $153 to $320 million, at the 3 percent discount rate, and $155 to $346 million at the 7 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars. The monetized total incremental annual benefits, in 2016 dollars, given a one year delay of the compliance date would range from $213 to $616 million, at the 3 percent discount rate, and $37 to $111 million at the 7 percent discount rate.

The annualized incremental cost savings, in 2016 dollars, would range from $7 to $27 million, across the low and high scenarios, at the 3 and 7 percent discount rates. The annualized monetized incremental benefit reduction ranges from $3 to $29 million across the cost and discounting scenarios, in 2016 dollars. These differentials represent the impact of the delay in the stream of costs and benefit from the LCRR for one year, over the 35-year period of analysis.

References

The White House. 2021a. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis. Federal Register 86 FR 7037. January 20, 2021. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

The White House. 2021b. Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-list-of-agency-actions-for-review/

The White House. 2021c. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Regulatory Freeze Pending Review Federal Register 86 FR 7424. January 28, 2021. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

USEPA. 2020. Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. December 2020. Office of Water.


[Federal Register: September 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 49874-49875]
[DOCID:fr29se09-51]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8960-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0217]

Draft Toxicological Review of Chloroprene: In Support of the
Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a public comment period for the external
review draft document titled, ``Toxicological Review of Chloroprene: In
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)''. EPA intends to consider comments and recommendations
from the public and the expert peer-review workshop, which will be
scheduled at a later date and announced in the Federal Register, when
EPA finalizes the draft document. The public comment period will
provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the
document. EPA intends to forward public comments submitted in
accordance with this notice to the external peer-review panel prior to
the meeting for their consideration.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination public review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination.
    The draft document and EPA's peer-review charge are available via
the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's
(NCEA) home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. When finalizing the
draft document, EPA intends to consider any public comments that EPA
receives in accordance with this notice.

DATES: The 60-day public comment period begins September 29, 2009, and
ends November 30, 2009. Technical comments should be in writing and
must be received by EPA by November 30, 2009. EPA intends to submit
comments from the public received by this date for consideration by the
external peer review panel.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``Toxicological Review of Chloroprene: In Support
of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)'' is available via the Internet on the NCEA's home page under
the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available from
NCEA's Technical Information Staff, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
703-347-8691. If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your
name, mailing address, and the document title, ``Toxicological Review
of Chloroprene: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS)''.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://
www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you have questions about the document, contact Allen Davis,
Hazardous Pollutant Assessment Group (HPAG), National Center for
Environmental Assessment, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Information About the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)

    IRIS is a database that contains potential adverse human health
effects information that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure
to specific chemical substances found in the environment. The database
(available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris) contains
qualitative and quantitative health effects information for more than
540 chemical substances that may be used to support the first two steps
(hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of a risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, the database
provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference
concentrations (RfCs) for chronic health effects, and oral slope
factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. Combined
with specific exposure information, government and private entities can
use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-
0217 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one
unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of
the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0217. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: June 15, 2009.
Rebecca Clark,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E9-23504 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13010-13011]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05442]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77311; File No. SR-ICEEU-2016-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Delegation of Authority To Approve Certain Rule and
Procedure Amendments

March 7, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 29, 2016, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear
Europe filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i) \4\ thereunder, so that the
proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe is proposing certain rule changes relating to the
delegation by the ICE Clear Europe Board of Directors to its President
and Managing Director (acting together with the Head of Regulation) of
authority to approve certain rule and procedure amendments.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe 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
    The purpose of the changes is to authorize the President and
Managing Director of ICE Clear Europe, acting together with the Head of
Regulation, to approve certain amendments to the ICE Clear Europe
Clearing Rules and Procedures, without the need for specific Board
approval. Under existing practice, consistent with the ICE Clear Europe
Articles, all Rule and Procedure amendments, regardless of
significance, require Board approval. In light of its experience with
this practice, the ICE Clear Europe Board has determined that certain
categories of Rule and Procedure changes do not necessarily need Board
approval, as discussed herein.
    Accordingly, the ICE Clear Europe Board proposes to delegate to the
President and Managing Director, acting together with the Head of
Regulation, authority to approve Rule and Procedure amendments relating
to business-as-usual product launches and operational processes. These
categories of amendments would include, for example, amendments
relating to launches of new cleared products of the same types as
currently cleared, amendments that reflect changes in operational
practices and processes, and drafting clarifications, updates and
corrections to errors. Such amendments would not be required to be
submitted for approval to the Board. The delegation will not otherwise
affect other aspects of the Rule and Procedure amendment process,
including the role of the relevant Risk Committees, consultation with
Clearing Members and others as appropriate, internal regulatory,
business and operational reviews and internal or external legal review,
as appropriate. The delegation, of course, will also not affect
regulatory submission, filing and approval requirements, as applicable.
ICE Clear Europe management will report to the Board any Rule and
Procedure amendments approved under this delegated authority.
    The delegation does not apply to Rule and Procedure changes
amendments [sic] that are required to ensure compliance with relevant
legislation directed at ICE Clear Europe as a clearing organization.
Accordingly, such amendments will continue to require Board approval.
In addition, even for amendments that may be approved by the President
and Managing Director (acting together with the Head of Regulation),
the delegation would not

preclude submission of amendments to and approval by the Board if ICE
Clear Europe determined that was appropriate in the particular
circumstances.
    In ICE Clear Europe's view, the proposed delegation will provide an
efficient means of approving minor Rule and Procedure changes,
consistent with the governance requirements of the clearing house. In
light of its experience with the current approval practice, ICE Clear
Europe believes that the categories of rule and procedure amendments
being delegated do not typically rise to the level of significance that
warrants Board approval, and that requiring the Board to review and
approve such amendments is not necessarily a good use of the Board's
time and resources. In approving the delegation of authority, the Board
concluded that the internal review, consultation and regulatory
processes around the rule amendment process will ensure appropriate
review and consideration of any proposed amendments.
2. Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the changes described herein are
consistent with the requirements of section 17A of the Act \5\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it, and are consistent with the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible and the
protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of
section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\6\ As discussed above, the changes are
intended to create a more efficient procedure for review and approval
of certain business-as-usual and operational Rule and Procedure
amendments. Under the revised practice, such amendments could be
approved by the President and Managing Director acting together with
the Head of Regulation, without the need for Board approval. In ICE
Clear Europe's view, such amendments do not generally warrant the
Board's detailed review, and the delegation will accordingly permit the
Board to devote its time and resources to other Clearing House matters.
The Board will be notified of all amendments approved pursuant to
delegated authority and will retain oversight of the process. As a
result, ICE Clear Europe believes the changes will promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities and derivatives
transactions, and further the public interest in the safe and effective
clearing of such transactions. The changes are thus consistent with the
requirements of section 17A of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed changes to the rules
would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The
amendments relate to ICE Clear Europe's internal approval processes,
and ICE Clear Europe does not believe that these changes will impose
any additional costs on Clearing Members or other market participants.
ICE Clear Europe further does not believe that the amendments will
adversely affect access to clearing by Clearing Members or their
customers or otherwise adversely affect Clearing Members or market
participants or the market for clearing services generally.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed changes to the rules have
not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the
Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \9\
thereunder. The amendments constitute a stated policy, practice or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration or
enforcement of an existing rule. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes are 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-ICEEU-2016-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2016-002. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rule-filings.
    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-ICEEU-2016-002
and should be submitted on or before April 1, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05442 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8323-8325]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF10-1-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Line N Projects, Notice of
Public Scoping Meeting, and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

February 18, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Line N Relocation and
Interconnect Project and the Line N Compressor Installation Expansion
Project (the Line N Projects), proposed by National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), in Greene and Washington Counties,
Pennsylvania (PA). The EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we \1\
will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on March 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to environmental staff of
the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments may be submitted in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, we invite you to attend the public scoping
meeting scheduled as follows:

FERC Public Scoping Meeting--Line N Projects

    March 3, 2010, 6 p.m., Graysville Elementary, 1029 West Roy Furman
Highway, Graysville, PA 15337.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project, which includes affected landowners;
Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to
notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities.
The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with State law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-
guides.asp). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    National Fuel has proposed to construct, operate, and maintain the
Line N Projects, which consist of the Line N Relocation and
Interconnect Project (Line N R&I Project) and the Line N Compressor
Installation Expansion Project (Line N CIE Project), located in Greene
and Washington Counties, PA. The Line N Projects consists of the
following facilities:
     The Line N R&I Project consists of the construction of
approximately 17.5 miles of new 20-inch diameter natural gas pipeline
and a new metering and regulating facility in Green County, PA.
     The Line N CIE Project consists of the construction of the
new 5,000 horsepower Buffalo Compressor Station, and replacement of two
miles of 20-inch diameter natural gas replacement pipeline located in
Washington County, PA.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 157.6
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, about 119.4 acres would be maintained for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA. To ensure
your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions
in the

Public Participation section of this notice, beginning on page 4.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use, recreation and visual resources;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     hazardous waste;
     public safety; and,
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the planned
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. As part of our pre-filing review,
we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss
their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA
may be published and mailed to those on our environmental mailing list.
A comment period will be allotted for review of the EA if it is
published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our
recommendations to the Commission.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    Based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the
environmental information provided by National Fuel, we have identified
potential visual and land use impacts that we think deserve attention.
National Fuel anticipates that long wall coal mining may proceed
beneath the pipeline at some point in the future. Additional issues may
be included in our analysis based on your comments.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
written comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
March 22, 2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your written comments to the Commission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff
available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located at http://www.ferc.gov under the link
called ``Documents and Filings''. A Quick Comment is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
``eFiling'' feature that is listed under the ``Documents and Filings''
link. eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as
you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your
computer's hard drive. You will attach that file to your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on the links
called ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister''. You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once National Fuel files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an ``intervenor'', which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates the proceeding by filing a request
to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this
time. You must wait until a formal application for the project is filed
with the Commission.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits, in the Docket Number field
(i.e., PF10-1). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3636 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


              Feedstock Considerations and Impacts on Biorefining
                                 Andy Aden, PE
                                     NREL
                                 Dec. 10, 2009

Introduction
Biomass is ubiquitous.  It can be found in nearly every part of the globe except from the harshest of climates.  This makes it an important renewable resource of interest to a large number of stakeholders internationally.  However, not all biomass is created equal.  There are a wide variety of lignocellulosic materials that could potentially be utilized for biorefining into liquid fuels and other products.
Biomass can be grouped and classified in many ways.  Near-term biomass feedstocks can be byproducts from existing processes, such as the stalks, leaves and other plant matter left over after harvesting (i.e. corn stover, wheat straw, etc).  Forest residues from thinning operations or from existing lumber processing are also a potential feedstock, as is bagasse, the plant fiber left after extracting sugar from sugar cane.  Dedicated biomass crops have also been envisioned for biorefining purposes.  These would include fast-growing tree plantations (poplar), energy cane, and grasses (switchgrass, miscanthus).
Significant variability exists for all biomass feedstocks of interest to refiners.  Even within a single type of biomass (i.e. corn stover), significant compositional variation has been seen.  The reasons for this variation are due to a wide variety of genetic and environmental factors, including soil conditions, precipitation, harvesting time, harvesting method, and plant genetics.  This variation in composition can have a very large impact in processability and in the overall economics of biorefining.  Therefore, the objective of this report is to outline the key biomass feedstock considerations and the potential impact they may have on overall yield and processability within the biorefinery.  Much of this information comes from decades of study of the structure and composition of biomass resources, as well as hands-on pilot plant experience with conversion of these materials to liquid fuels and other products at NREL.
Background
Biomass feedstocks considered here represent a mixture of those identified as being of potentially high-volume in the United States.  These include wheat straw, corn stover, forest residues and thinnings, switchgrass, and plantation trees such as poplar.  Other feedstocks will be discussed but will not be primary foci, including bagasse, sorghum, energy cane, rice straw, and municipal solid waste (MSW).
While there are many sources of biomass, there are also many envisioned methods of converting that biomass to fuels.  To focus the discussion, three representative conversion technologies will be considered here:  one biochemical (using enzymes and fermentative organisms) and two thermochemical (gasification coupled with mixed alcohol and/or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis).  These are well documented in two NREL design reports[.].  The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) design was documented in an earlier report to EPA from NREL.  Other processes will not be discussed here, including Coskata's syngas fermentation, Bluefire Ethanol's concentrated acid process, and certain pyrolysis processes.
Many methods of feedstock compositional analysis have been developed over the years.  Quantifying the components of biomass and biomass intermediates remains an active area of research, aimed at producing more accurate and faster methods of analysis.  When considering a specific biomass resource for refining, it is always best to conduct this analysis on representative materials because of the large variability described above.  However, several collections of existing compositional data exist[,].
MSW can be considered a potential feedstock for biomass conversion processes, both biochemical and thermochemical.  In either process, the organic fraction of MSW is targeted.  However, there are many challenges and considerations associated with this particular feedstock.  These largely relate to the potential quantity and quality of biomass from MSW.  Maintaining a consistent quality MSW feedstock is extremely difficult.  MSW is also not easily defined.  In many parts of the country, "trash" is not segregated in any fashion and can be extremely variable in contents.  It would have to be pre-sorted to better isolate a biomass fraction and this would add cost.  However, in certain parts of the country, this pre-sorting infrastructure is in place, such as California.  Sometimes called a MRF or MERF (Materials Recovery Facility), this facility separates co-mingled trash into separate fractions of aluminum, paper, cardboard, etc.  Each of these can then be sold to recycle markets overseas and domestic.  Sometimes, curbside segregation can result in materials such as "urban greenwaste" (food/wood/yard trimmings) that could more easily be utilized as a biomass feedsource.  However this is not widely practiced in the US which makes it difficult to visual urban greenwaste as a high-impact biomass feedstock.
It's also important to keep in mind that current markets do exist for these MSW materials.  Cardboard and paper can be sold overseas for over $100/ton, which makes using such materials for biofuels cost prohibitive.  Urban greenwaste is utilized for commercial mulch and organic composting.  In the past, several biomass companies have developed business plans that require negative cost feedstocks.  In other words, they count on tipping fees remaining in place for companies to dispose of waste.  In essence the biomass company gets paid to take the feedstock instead of paying for feedstock.  However, the problem with this strategy is that the value of these materials could quickly rise with significant demand present, which could cause feedstock costs to rise.
Discussion
The general topics of comparison for the various feedstocks include:
   * Type of analysis conducted (carbohydrate vs. ultimate)
   * Energy content (heating value of biomass, HHV, LHV)
   * Moisture, water content
   * Physical structure of biomass
   * Cellulose
   * Hemicellulose
   * Lignin
   * Acetyl groups
   * Other organics
   * Ash and other inorganics
   Type of analysis conducted.  The type of analysis conducted is largely determined by the process under consideration.  For a biochemical process, a carbohydrate analysis is more informative because of the known stoichiometric reactions within a biochemical process for carbohydrate conversion.  This is typically accomplished using published laboratory analytical procedures and equipment such as high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).  In a biochemical process, only the carbohydrate fractions of the biomass are converted to ethanol.  The remaining fractions (lignin, ash, etc) are either converted to heat and power, or remain relatively unconverted.  For a thermochemical process, an elemental (also known as "ultimate") analysis is more informative.  This type of analysis has been used to analyze other solid resources such as coal for many years.  It simply quantifies how much of the organic elements are present within a sample (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, Chlorine, etc).  Other inorganic compounds are found in the Ash fraction, which can further be broken down into fractions of potassium, sodium, etc.  The C,H, and O in particular represent the potential available materials for synthesizing mixed alcohols downstream.
   Energy content.  The energy content of biomass is often expressed in terms of a higher or lower heating value.  In thermodynamic literature, these are often referred to as a heat of combustion; the heat released from the biomass when it's combusted and the chemical bonds are broken.  The higher heating value (HHV) assumes that all the water is in the liquid phase at the end of combustion, while the LHV assumes that the water is in the vapor phase.  In this fashion, the HHV includes the heat that can be obtained by condensing the water vapor produced by combustion.  Biomass feedstocks with higher energy contents have more energy available from which to create liquid fuels.  Woods, for example, often have higher heating values compared to grasses like stover.  It is important to calculate heating values on a moisture-free or dry basis because the presence of water in a biomass feedstock will reduce the gross heating value.
   Moisture, water content.  The presence of moisture in a feedstock can have a significant impact on the biorefining process, especially if it is a thermochemical process.  Processing feedstocks with higher moisture content in a thermochemical process will produce lower overall efficiencies than drier feedstocks.  This is due to the energy lost in vaporizing this moisture.  Wetter feedstocks will also have lower efficiencies in the gasification step as well.  In a biochemical process, the moisture content of the biomass has less of an impact on the overall efficiency.  Because these processes are mostly aqueous-phase systems to begin with, water is often added in order to slurry the biomass and make it more "flowable".  In the design report process as designed, water is added until the biomass slurry entering pretreatment is approximately 30% total solids, or approximately 70% moisture.  Therefore, starting with a feedstock that is 15% moisture will require the addition of more water than a feedstock that is 50% moisture.  Technoeconomic analysis has shown that maximizing the solids concentrations through the biochemical processes helps to reduce cost because of economies of scale.  However, this is limited by a pretreatment's ability to disrupt the biomass matrix sufficiently.  Certain pretreatment reactors and feeding systems can also have limitations on the solids concentration they can utilize.  Woods are expected to arrive at a biorefinery with moisture concentrations near 50%, while feedstocks that have been field dried are expected to be closer to 15% moisture.  The moisture content can be affected by time of biomass collection, and other processing steps such as pelletization, drying, torrefaction, etc.
   Physical structure of biomass.  Biomass can be analyzed and classified at many different levels.  For example, biomass often contains different anatomical fractions that can be visualized without the aid of any microscopic tools.  Fractions of a corn plant, for example, include stalks, husks, cobs, nodes, etc.  As one dives deeper into the biomass, different classification systems come in to play.  Within the anatomical fractions, different cell types exist.  Ultimately, the biomass polymers of most interest (cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin) are found within the plant's cell walls.
   Nature has made these biomass materials resistant to degradation so as to guard against environmental elements and biological attack.  The three most common compounds are cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin.  These compounds are interwoven physically with each other and also chemically bonded to one another.  Cellulose within plant cell walls comes in the form of microfibrils.  Hemicellulose is a general group of other polysaccharides and organic acids that form a sheath around the cellulose.  They also form covalently bonds and ester linkages with the lignin present.  Different biomass resources will contain different versions of how these compounds are physically arranged.  These differences can lead to varying degrees of "convertability".  For example, wheat straw has been shown to be more amenable to biochemical conversion (at lower severity conditions) than corn stover.  This is part of the reason why it's a targeted feedstock.  Corn stover and switchgrass are less amenable to conversion and require more severe conditions to effectively pretreat.  Feedstocks that have already been pre-processed, such as bagasse or corn fiber, can also be more amenable to conversion because part of the matrix has already been disrupted through the initial processing steps.
   Cellulose.  Cellulose is a long polymer chain of glucose monomer units.  It is very similar in this fashion to starch.  The difference between starch and cellulose is how the glucose units are bonded.  Starch is bonded through alpha linkages, which are much easier to break than the beta linkages found in cellulose.  In this fashion, nature uses these compounds differently, using starch as an energy storage system, and cellulose as a structural function.  Together, cellulose and hemicellulose make up the total potential fraction of the biomass that can be directly converted to ethanol and other biofuels in a biochemical process.  Large variability in cellulose concentration is seen in biomass feedstocks.  Some niche biomass feedstocks have been seen to have almost 75% cellulose on a dry-weight basis, however this is not typical.  In general, cellulose concentrations for most feedstocks range between 30% and 45%.  Woods (both hardwood and softwood) tend to have higher cellulose concentrations than grasses and agricultural residues and therefore, have higher theoretical yield potentials of biofuel.
   Hemicellulose.  Hemicellulose is a general definition that captures additional biomass carbohydrates (xylan, galactan, arabinan, mannan) and organic acids (uronic acid, ferulic acid).  Hemicellulose also contains the acetyl functional groups that become acetic acid during dilute acid pretreatment.  Hemicellulose is generally thought of as "easier to convert" than cellulose, which is why processes are often designed to use cheaper chemicals to hydrolyze the hemicellulose during pretreatment as opposed to expensive enzymes.  Hemicellulase enzyme systems are under development but are not as developed as the cellulase systems.  Commercial hemicellulase preps are currently used in pulping and other industries.  However, they will contain much different functional activities than cellulase preps, such as xylanase, ferulic-acid-esterase, etc.  In a biochemical process, if the hemicellulose is not hydrolyzed chemically, the burden becomes placed on the enzymatic system.  This is seen with some of the alternative pretreatments such as AFEX, for example.  Under this pretreatment, the ammonia helps to swell fibers and disrupt the biomass matrix, however, does very little to hydrolyze or otherwise chemically convert the hemicellulose.  Concentrations of hemicellulose can range dramatically between biomass feedstocks (typically 15-30% dry weight of biomass).  The relative concentrations of hemicellulosic sugars can also vary.  For example, softwoods typically contain higher concentrations of mannan than hardwoods or grasses.
   Lignin.  Lignin is the substance within a cell wall that gives a plant structural rigidity.  It is a large molecular weight compound that contains aromatic rings and several functional groups (methoxy, etc.).  The empirical formula for lignin will vary between biomass feedstocks.  In other words, the lignin in hardwoods is different than lignin found in softwoods, which is different from lignin found in grasses and straws.  Lignin can be depolymerized through base-catalyzed reactions.  It can also be extracted from biomass using various organic solvents.  Several methods of quantifying lignin within biomass exist, including Klason lignin, and other such determinations.  In a thermochemical process, the lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose are broken down to produce a mixture of gases (CO, H2, CO2, CH4, etc), tars (organics with molecular weight greater than or equal to benzene), solid char, and ash.  In a dilute acid biochemical process, the lignin carries through the process relatively unchanged.  Some of the lignin is solubilized if temperatures in pretreatment exceed the glass transition temperature of lignin (~135C).  However, the lignin will recondense into solid form once the temperature is reduced.  Lignin is known to inhibit enzymatic hydrolysis reactions however this interaction between cellulose, lignin, and enzymes is complex and the subject of much research.  Lignin is known to play a role in "non-specific binding" which means that the cellulase enzymes will bind to the lignin instead of the cellulose.  This causes enzyme to try to act on a substrate that it wasn't meant for, which equates ultimately to the need for higher enzyme loadings.  However, digestibility experiments have also shown that completely extracting the lignin does not necessarily create more digestible cellulose.  The theory here is that when lignin and hemicellulose are completely extracted, the cellulose microfibrils may hydrogen bond to one another and become even more recalcitrant than before.  But aside from that, feedstocks with less lignin are generally more amenable to enzymatic conversion, and feedstocks with higher lignin are more recalcitrant, requiring higher enzyme doses or have yields that are much lower.  In general, woods have higher lignin fractions than grasses and straws.  Lignin composition of some woody biomass has been seen in the high 20's percent on a dry weight basis.
   Acetyl groups.  The amount of acetylation of biomass depends on the specific feedstock.  The acetyl groups are part of the hemicelluloses and are easily cleaved during dilute acid hydrolysis.  In this low pH environment, they become acetic acid, which is a well-known fermentation inhibitor.  For some ammonia-based alternative pretreatments the acetyl groups convert to acetimide, which helps to reduce the amount of acetic acid a fermenting organism will see.  During gasification, the specific fate of these compounds are unknown, but they in some fashion become part of the syngas, char, and tars.  In general higher acetylation is seen with hardwoods than grasses or straws.  For biomass that is more highly acetylated (>4% dry wt), additional processing is required to reduce the acetic acid levels to a more manageable level (<10 g/L).  This can include membrane separation, ion exchange, etc.  This can add cost to a process.
   Other organics.  Other organic compounds that can be present in biomass include acids (uronic acids), proteins, "extractives", other sugars (fructose, sucrose), pectins, and other unidentified "soluble solids".  Methods for quantifying these compounds continue to undergo development.  The fate of many of these compounds within a biochemical process are largely unknown.  In process models these are largely assumed to be combusted with lignin residue to provide heat and power, or can end up in wastewater treatment.  Helping to identify the additional organic compounds present within these biomass fractions can help to close material balances to a greater degree.
   Ash and other inorganics.  Ash is comprised of the inorganic materials and minerals entering the process.  They can either be "structural inorganics" which are metals such as potassium, sodium, sulfur, etc. found in the biomass itself, or they can be non-structural inorganics.  The structural inorganics help provide certain functionalities within the living plant just as they do for human bodies.  Non-structural inorganics are sources of material that come from the environment when the biomass is collected.  For example, when corn stover is collected off of the field, a certain amount of soil and dirt will come with the stover.  When the biomass is analyzed, this will show up in the analysis as ash.  This is part of why grasses and straws typically have higher ash contents than woods.  Ash is effectively inert material.  Therefore, it is desirable to have low-ash biomass for biorefining because you don't want to pay a lot of money for biomass fractions that can't be converted into anything useful.
   In a biochemical process, the ash is largely inert and will end up as dry ash coming from the boiler.  However, if ash fractions (potassium, etc) that go to wastewater treatment are too high, they can become problematic.  They can impact process equipment by eroding it if present in high enough concentration.  Rice straw is a primary example.  Rice straw is notorious for having high concentrations of silica.  This has been shown to erode process equipment at those concentrations.  This can increase processing costs and is unfavorable.  In a thermochemical process, the ash will come out of the gasifier as a solid dry ash for lower temperature systems.  In high temperature gasification systems, the ash will leave as a molten form called "slag".  This will cool into a glassy looking substance that has a number of potential uses, including being added to road base, cement and other structural foundation material.
   Sulfur is one inorganic that is of particular concern to thermochemical processes.  The thermochemical mixed alcohol process as designed uses a nickel-based tar reforming catalyst to reform tars into additional syngas yield.  Sulfur is a known poison to nickel-based catalysts.  As such, experiments have shown catalyst to deactivate more quickly in the presence of sulfur and lose full reforming potential when regenerated.  This means that certain active sites have been poisoned irreversibly.  Woods typically have low sulfur levels, around 10 parts per million (ppm).  However agricultural residues and energy crops (corn stover, switchgrass) can have sulfur levels as high as 500 ppm, which can greatly impact the process.  In a gasifier's reducing atmosphere, sulfur will typically come in the form of H2S.  Sulfur can also impact fuel synthesis catalysts.  In this particular mixed alcohol process, a Cobalt-moly-sulfide based catalyst is used to convert syngas into mixed alcohols.  This particular catalyst actually requires the presence of small amounts of sulfur to remain sulfided.  However, alternative catalysts may run the risk of being poisoned by sulfur, which would require additional cost due to more stringent acid gas scrubbing.

   Summary
   Given all of the information described thus far, a qualitative comparison of process yield, efficiency, etc. for the chosen feedstocks was completed.  This is summarized in Table 1.  There are many considerations that can impact these parameters.  Many experimental lessons have been learned throughout the years for comparing feedstocks to one another.  Those learnings were incorporated into this comparison as much as possible.
   In a biochemical process, corn stover and switchgrass have shown to behave similarly.  They have similar composition, are anatomically similar, and therefore at this juncture would be expected to produce similar yields in such a process.  While wheat straw also maintains a similar composition to corn stover and switchgrass, experiments have shown it to be more amenable to conversion at lower severity.  Poplar and other hardwoods, however, are expected to perform differently in a biochemical process.  The total carbohydrate potential, and therefore the theoretical ethanol yield is larger due to these woods having more cellulose.  The heating value of the woods is also greater.  The difference in moisture in a biochemical process (15% vs. 50%) has little impact on the efficiency or yield.  Because of the much greater lignin content, the electric coproduct credit for a biochemical process is also anticipated to be greater for woods than for stover or switchgrass.  However, this increased lignin can potentially have negative impacts on certain sections of the process, particularly the enzymatic hydrolysis.  For the woods, the yields would likely be achieved through certain process improvements that help to overcome these negative impacts. These improvements may cost more money, but cost was not a factor in this particular analysis.  Another area for potentially increased cost comes from the higher levels of acetylation in hardwoods compared to stover and grasses.  Additional unit operations might be needed to reduce the acetic acid levels prior to fermentation to avoid inhibition of the cells.
   For a thermochemical process, woods make an excellent feedstock.  They have high heating values compared to stover and switchgrass, and they are low in sulfur (which can poison the tar reforming catalyst).  One of their drawbacks is their higher moisture content.  This tends to lower the overall efficiency of these processes, however, higher yields from woods are still observed compared to stover and switchgrass.  Forest residues have a very large compositional variability depending on what forests they come from (hardwood, softwood), how they are harvested, etc.  For the purposes of this study, they were assumed to be similar to poplar, however, detailed compositional analysis would be required to verify this for a specific feedstock or biorefinery project.  The yields for the FT process lower than the mixed alcohols process, but the overall energy efficiencies of both processes are approximately the same.
   For the data summarized in Table 1, a few cells were noted with "?".  These are the overall efficiencies for biochemical conversion of poplar for 2010, 2015, and 2022.  Researchers at NREL don't currently have a good understanding of how the overall efficiency might differ between woods and grasses (or residues) in a biochemical process.  As such, NREL's current recommendation is to assume that the efficiencies are similar for both feedstock classes until this is better understood through future research.

   Table 1  -  Biomass feedstock comparison between biochemical and thermochemical processes


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 226 (Monday, November 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 67706]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-15-000]

Joint Federal-State Task Force on Electric Transmission; Notice
Inviting Post-Meeting Comments

    On November 10, 2021, the Joint Federal-State Task Force on
Electric Transmission convened for its first public meeting.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-meeting comments to
address issues raised during the meeting and identified in the Agenda
issued October 27, 2021. Comments must be submitted on or before 30
days from the date of this Notice.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.\1\
Instructions are available on the Commission's website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Michael Cackoski (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]
Gretchen Kershaw (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
(202) 502-8213, [email protected]

    Dated: November 22, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25939 Filed 11-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2977-2978]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1494-438]

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (Pad), Commencement of
Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the Pad and
Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study
Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 1494-438.
    c. Dated Filed: February 1, 2017.
    d. Submitted By: Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA).
    e. Name of Project: Pensacola Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Grand (Neosho) River in
Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma. No federal lands
have been identified within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Dr. Darrell Townsend, Assistant
General Manager, GRDA, 420 Highway 28, Langley, OK 74359-0070; (918)
256-0616 or [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Rachel McNamara at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC 61,076
(2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402 and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating GRDA as the Commission's
non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation,
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. GRDA filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6
of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(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 at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at 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 protected] In lieu of electronic filing, please send a
paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-1494-438.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
Comments on Pre-Application Document, Study Requests, Comments on
Scoping Document 1, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or
Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity
interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1,
and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by March 13,
2018.
    p. We intend to prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The meetings listed below will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold four scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the

project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meetings will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meetings are primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or more of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting--Langley, Oklahoma

    Date & Time: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 9 a.m.
    Location: GRDA Ecosystems and Education Center, 420 E. Highway 28,
Langley, Oklahoma 74350,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Evening Scoping Meeting--Grove, Oklahoma

    Date & Time: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 6 p.m.
    Location: Grove City Hall, 104 W. 3rd Street, Grove, Oklahoma
74344,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Evening Scoping Meeting--Miami, Oklahoma

    Date & Time: Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6 p.m.
    Location: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College, Fine Arts Center
Performance Hall, 200 I St. NE, Miami, Oklahoma 74354,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Daytime Scoping Meeting--Tulsa, Oklahoma

    Date & Time: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9 a.m.
    Location: GRDA Engineering and Technology Center, 9933 E. 16th
Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Please RSVP to Jacklyn Jaggars,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected], on or before January 31, 2018 if you plan to attend
the scoping meeting in Tulsa.
    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be
available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Follow the directions for
accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written
comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a
revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues,
identified through the scoping process.
Environmental Site Review
    The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an
Environmental Site Review (site visit) of the project on Wednesday,
February 7, 2018, starting at 12:30 p.m., and ending at or about 4:30
p.m. All participants should meet at the GRDA Ecosystems and Education
Center located at 420 E. Highway 28, Langley, Oklahoma 74350.
Participants must notify Jacklyn Jaggars at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected], on or before January 31, 2018, if they plan to
attend the environmental site review.
Meeting Objectives
    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.
Meeting Procedures
    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public records of the project.

    Dated: January 12, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01013 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68481-68482]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5944-024]

Moretown Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following license application has been filed
with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent License.
    b. Project No.: P-5944-024.
    c. Date filed: November 30, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Moretown Hydroelectric LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Moretown No. 8 Hydroelectric Project (Moretown
Project).
    f. Location: The existing hydroelectric project is located on the
Mad River in Washington County, Vermont. The project does not occupy
any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
    h. Applicant Contact: Arion Thiboumery, Moretown Hydroelectric,
LLC, 1273 Fowler Rd., Plainfield, VT 05667;<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
ion.net">[email protected]ion.net.
    i. FERC Contact: Maryam Zavareh,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    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/FERC.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first

page of any filing should include docket number P-5944-024.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Moretown Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) a
407-foot-long, 31-foot-high concrete gravity dam with a 159-foot-long
overflow spillway and a crest elevation of 524.26 feet North American
Vertical Datum (NAVD88); (2) a 17.5-acre impoundment; (3) a 20.3-foot-
wide concrete intake structure with a 12.5-foot-wide, 15.1-foot-high
trashrack; (4) a 39.4-foot-long, 8.5-foot-diameter steel penstock; (5)
a 39.4-foot-long, 19.7-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing a
single 1.2-megawatt turbine-generator unit; (6) a tailrace; (7) a 105-
foot-long, 12.5-kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant
facilities. The Moretown Project is operated in a run-of-river mode
with an average annual generation of 2,094 megawatt-hours.
    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'', ``RECOMMENDA-TIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at https://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. The applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date
of issuance of this notice either: (1) evidence of the date on which
the certifying agency received the certification request; (2) a copy of
the water quality certification; or (3) evidence of waiver of water
quality certification. Please note that the certification request must
comply with 40 CFR 121.5(b), including documentation that a pre-filing
meeting request was submitted to the certifying authority at least 30
days prior to submitting the certification request. Please also note
that the certification request must be sent to the certifying authority
and to the Commission concurrently.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

Deadline for Filing Comments, Recommendations, and Agency Terms and
Conditions/Prescriptions January 2023
Licensee's Reply to REA Comments February 2023

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

    Dated: November 8, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24819 Filed 11-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P