[Federal Register: September 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 54796-54797]
[DOCID:fr23se08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-205-028]

Xcel Energy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 16, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 27, 2008, Xcel Energy Services, Inc.,
filed revised market-based rate tariff sheets pursuant to Section 205
of the Federal Power Act and Section 35.13 of the Commission's
regulations, 18 CFR 35.13.
    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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 September 26, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22161 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24699-24702]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0921; FRL-10846-01-OCSPP]

Oxirane, 2-Methyl-, Polymer With Oxirane, Ether With 1,2,3-
Propanetriol (3:1); Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1); minimum average number
molecular weight 6,000 Daltons (CAS Reg. No. 9082-00-2) when used as an
inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Delta Analytical
Corporation on behalf of Borchers Americas, Inc., submitted a petition
to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with
1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) on food or feed commodities when used in
accordance with these exemptions.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 24, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 23, 2023 and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0921, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
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 and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0921 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 23, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although the Office
of the Administrative Law Judges, which houses the Hearing Clerk,
encourages parties to file objections and hearing requests
electronically. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0921, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets#express.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of January 3, 2023 (88 FR 38) (FRL-9410-
08), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11711)
filed by Delta Analytical Corporation, 12510 Prosperity Drive, Suite
160, Silver Spring, MD 20904 on behalf of Borchers Americas, Inc., 811
Sharon Drive, Westlake, OH 44145. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane,
ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) (CAS Reg. No. 9082-00-2). That
document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner
and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) conforms to the definition
of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following
criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
silicon, and sulfur.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize. An
available biodegradation study supports that oxirane, 2-methyl-,
polymer with oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) is not
readily biodegradable (MRID 52074101).
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable
TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 Daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40
CFR 723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria: specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e):
    The polymer's minimum number average MW of 6,000 Daltons is greater
than 1,000 and less than 10,000 Daltons. The polymer contains less than
10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric
material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive
functional groups.
    Thus, oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-
propanetriol (3:1) meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered
low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria
in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary,
inhalation, or dermal exposure to oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1).

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) could be present in all
raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that
non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number
average MW of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with
1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) is 6,000 Daltons. Generally, a polymer of this
size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract
or through intact human skin. Since oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) conform to the criteria
that identify a low-risk polymer, there

are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure
scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined
that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether
with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that oxirane, 2-
methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) does
not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either
retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety
factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor. Due to the expected low toxicity of oxirane, 2-
methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1), EPA
has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same
reasons no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to
infants and children.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1).

VIII. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of oxirane, 2-
methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1) from
the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 18, 2023.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, add in alphabetical order the polymer ``Oxirane,
2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1),
minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of 6,000'' to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   180.960
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with           9082-00-2
 1,2,3-propanetriol (3:1), minimum number average
 molecular weight (in amu) of 6,000.....................

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

[FR Doc. 2023-08585 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15200-15201]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13704-002]

FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License--Existing Dam.
    b. Project No.: 13704-002.
    c. Date filed: November 13, 2013.
    d. Applicant: FFP Missouri 2, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Arkabutla Lake Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) existing Arkabutla Lake Dam, on the
Coldwater River, near the town of Hernando, in Tate and DeSoto
Counties, Mississippi. The proposed project would occupy approximately
48.2 acres of federal land administered by the Corps.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Rye Development, 745
Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02111; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jeanne Edwards, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> and email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Patti Leppert, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> and
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at 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>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (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-13704-002.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed Arkabutla Lake Project would utilize the following
existing Corps' Arkabutla Lake Dam facilities: (1) A 10,000-foot-long,
65-foot-high earth fill embankment dam; (2) a reservoir; and (3) outlet
works consisting of a concrete intake tower, three gated inlets that
combine to direct flow through a 355-foot-long, 16.0-foot by 18.25-foot
ovoid concrete outlet conduit, and a stilling basin.
    The proposed Arkabutla Lake Project would consist of the following
new facilities: (1) A 325-foot-long, 15.5-foot-diameter steel liner
installed within the existing outlet conduit; (2) a 50-foot-long,
varying width steel-lined, concrete bifurcation chamber containing two
hydraulically-operated gates used to control the amount of flow
diverted from the existing stilling basin to the powerhouse; (3) a 272-
foot-long, 12-foot-diameter steel penstock; (4) a 60-foot wide, 50-
foot-long, 83-foot-high steel and reinforced-concrete forebay housing
trashracks and a fish bypass gate; (5) an 80-foot-long, 46-foot-wide
concrete powerhouse containing two vertical Kaplan turbine-generator
units having a combined installed capacity of 5.1 megawatts; (6) a 200-
foot long, 85-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 1,574-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt
(kV) buried cable; (8) a substation; and (9) a 2,712-foot-long, 12.5-kV
overhead transmission line extending from the substation to a utility-
owned distribution line. The average annual generation would be 19,000
megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.

    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS''; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    n. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
revised hydro licensing schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made
as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of recommendations, terms and        May 2015.
 conditions, and prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft EA................  December 2015.
Comments on Draft EA Due..................  January 2016.
Commission Issues Final EA................  May 2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
application, which has already been given, established the due date for
filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the
Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be
filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the
initial development application. No competing applications or notices
of intent may be filed in response to this notice.

    Dated: March 16, 2015.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06526 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33789-33790]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0044]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Florida Gas
Transmission Company

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on
a request for a special permit received from Florida Gas Transmission
Company (FGT). The special permit request is seeking relief from
compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety
regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will
review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation
to grant or deny the special permit request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
July 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for the specific
special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please

submit two (2) copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, please include a self-addressed stamped postcard.
Internet users may submit comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Note: There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Sec.  190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential
treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following
steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission
containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along with the
original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI
deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this matter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA received a special permit request from
FGT seeking a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a)(3):
Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable
operating pressure. This special permit is being requested for class
location changes in lieu of pipe replacement, pressure testing, or
pressure reduction for 13 special permit segments totaling 1.34 miles
of the FGT pipeline system. The proposed special permit segments are
located in four (4) counties (Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, and
Pasco) in Florida. The pipeline class locations in the special permit
segments have changed from either a Class 1 to Class 3 location or from
a Class 2 to Class 3 location. The FGT pipeline has not been pressure
tested to a high enough pressure to meet the requirements in 49 CFR
192.611(a)(3). The special permit segments are not contiguous and are
comprised of either 18-inch, 30-inch, or 36-inch diameter pipe with
existing maximum allowable operating pressures (MAOP) of either 1,322
pounds per square inch gauge (psig) or 1,333 psig. The installation
dates of the special permit segments range from 1992 to 2007. The
special permit segments are included in an existing Alternative MAOP
special permit (PHMSA-2008-0077) that allows the special permit
segments to operate at class location stress levels that meet 49 CFR
192.620(a)(1).
    The special permit request, proposed special permit with
conditions, and Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the FGT
pipeline are available for review and public comment in Docket No.
PHMSA-2020-0044. We invite interested persons to review and submit
comments on the special permit request, proposed special permit with
conditions, and DEA in the docket. Please include any comments on
potential safety and environmental impacts that may result if the
special permit is granted. Comments may include relevant data.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will
evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date.
Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it is
possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA
will consider each relevant comment it receives in making a decision to
grant or deny this request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2020-11823 Filed 6-1-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 54590]
[DOCID:fr22oc09-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0099

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0099; FEMA Form
646-0, Citizen Corps Individual Registration.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Office
of Records Management, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-
3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Citizen Corps Individual Registration.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: OMB No. 1660-0099.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 646-0, Citizen Corps Individual
Registration.
    Abstract: FEMA's Community Preparedness Division (CPD) would like
to revise a currently approved collection for its individual
registration to allow members of the public to provide contact
information to receive national programmatic updates and announcements
such as upcoming preparedness demonstrations and training opportunities
and the opportunity to get involved in local organizations and events.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20,000.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: .08 burden hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,600 burden hours.
    Estimated Cost: None.

Daisy Mitchell,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E9-25378 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-05-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36329-36330]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-P-1154]

Determination That THEO-DUR (Theophylline) Extended-Release
Tablets, 100 Milligrams and 300 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From
Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) has
determined that THEO-DUR (theophylline) extended-release tablets, 100
milligrams (mg) and 300 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not
begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow
FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as
they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nisha Shah, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of
an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug
product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other
things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active
ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength,
conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed
drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and
(2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of
all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the ``Approved
Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is
known generally as the ``Orange Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs
are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval
of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if
FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons
of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    THEO-DUR (theophylline) extended-release tablets, 100 mg and 300
mg, are the subject of ANDA 085328, currently held by Merck & Co., Inc.
(previously held by Schering Corporation),\1\ initially approved on
April 12, 1979. THEO-DUR is indicated for the treatment of the symptoms
and reversible airflow obstruction associated with chronic asthma and
other chronic lung diseases, e.g., emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2009, Schering Corporation merged with Merck and is now
referred to as Merck & Co., Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated March 18, 2003, Schering Corporation requested
withdrawal of ANDA 085328 for THEO-DUR (theophylline) extended-release
tablets. In the Federal Register of May 5, 2004 (69 FR 25124), FDA
announced that it was withdrawing approval of ANDA 085328, effective
June 4, 2004.
    Lachman Consultants submitted a citizen petition dated October 25,
2021 (Docket No. FDA-2021-P-1154), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that
the Agency determine whether THEO-DUR (theophylline) extended-release
tablets, 300 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.

Although the citizen petition did not address the 100-mg strength, that
strength has also been discontinued. On our own initiative, we have
also determined whether that strength was withdrawn for safety or
effectiveness reasons.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that THEO-DUR (theophylline) extended-release
tablets, 100 mg and 300 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other
information suggesting that this drug product was withdrawn for reasons
of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for
records concerning the withdrawal of THEO-DUR (theophylline) extended-
release tablets, 100 mg and 300 mg, from sale. We have also
independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible
postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would
indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list THEO-DUR
(theophylline) extended-release tablets, 100 mg and 300 mg, in the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book. The
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates, among other items, drug
products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other
than safety or effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw
approval of approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional
ANDAs for this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long
as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the
approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug
product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will
advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: June 10, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-12920 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54134-54136]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22099]

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

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: RP19-1023-001.
    Applicants: MIGC LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing NAESB V3.1 (Order No. 587-Y)
Compliance 2 to be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190926-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1607-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., Dominion Energy
Cove Point LNG, LP, Dominion Energy Carolina Gas Transmission.
    Description: Notice of Unplanned Computer System Outage and Request
for Waiver of Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 9/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190926-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1614-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-30-19 to be
effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5014.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1615-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-30-19 to be
effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1616-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Atlantic Bridge--In-Service
Non-Conforming Filing to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1617-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Columbia Gas
860005 Oct 1 releases to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1618-000.
    Applicants: Cadeville Gas Storage LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing CGS NAESB STANDARDS to be effective
8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1619-000.
    Applicants: Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing MGS NAESB STANDARDS to be effective
8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1620-000.
    Applicants: Perryville Gas Storage LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing PGS NAESB STANDARDS to be effective
8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1621-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-30-19 to be
effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1622-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Negotiated Rate,
Conforming IW

Agreements (Increased Capacity 10/1 to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1623-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing North Seattle Lateral Compliance
Filing to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1624-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: NCF Agreements--contracts
400229 and 400233 to be effective 10/30/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1625-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate
Agreement Update (SoCal Nov19) to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1626-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Atlantic Bridge--In-Service NRA
Filing to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1627-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (JERA
releases eff 10-1-2019) to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1628-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Osaka
46429 to Spotlight 51545) to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1629-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts
(Atlanta Gas 8438 to various shippers eff 10-1-2019) to be effective
10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1630-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (JERA
37702 to EDF 38220) to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1631-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--NSTAR release
to BP Energy 799966 to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1632-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Aethon
37657, 50488 to Scona 51610, 51608) to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1633-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Neg Rate Agmt--
Twin, Shell, Seq, Merc, Columb & Freepoint to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1634-000.
    Applicants: Kinetica Deepwater Express, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Section 4 Rate Case to be
effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1635-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Carolina Gas Transmission.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DECG--2019 FRQ and TDA Report
to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1636-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Neg Rate Agmt--
Peninsula and South Jersey to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1637-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DETI--2019 Annual EPCA to be
effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1638-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DETI--2019 Annual TCRA to be
effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1639-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule LNG--INJ and W/D
Rights to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1640-000.
    Applicants: Sabine Pipe Line LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Normal 2019 Oct to be
effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1641-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-30-19 to be
effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1642-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Conoco Oct 2019) to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1643-000.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2019-09-30 CIMA
Energy to be effective 10/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1644-000.
    Applicants: Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Summit Natural Gas of
Maine, Boston Gas Company.

    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Commission
Policies, Capacity Release Regulations and Policies, et al. of Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, et al. under RP19-1644.
    Filed Date: 9/30/19.
    Accession Number: 20190930-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/19.

    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: October 3, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22099 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8421-8423]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL23-29-000.
    Applicants: Invenergy Energy Management LLC v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Complaint of Invenergy Energy Management LLC v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 2/1/23.
    Accession Number: 0230201-5246.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1529-006; ER10-2472-009; ER10-2473-009; ER10-
2502-010; ER11-2724-010; ER11-4436-008; ER18-2518-005; ER19-645-004.
    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado Wind, LLC, Black Hills Electric
Generation, LLC, Black Hills Power, Inc., Black Hills Colorado IPP,
LLC, Black Hills Colorado Electric, LLC, Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power

Company, Black Hills Wyoming, LLC, Northern Iowa Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Northern
Iowa Windpower, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20230131-5512.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1838-010; ER19-2231-007; ER19-2232-007; ER10-
1967-011; ER10-1968-010; ER10-1616-018; ER23-367-001; ER23-368-001;
ER23-369-001; ER22-46-006; ER22-1402-003; ER22-1404-003; ER19-1738-005;
ER10-1990-010; ER18-1821-010; ER10-1993-010.
    Applicants: Waymart Wind Farm, LLC, Walleye Power, LLC, Somerset
Windpower, LLC, Parkway Generation Sewaren Urban Renewal Entity LLC,
Parkway Generation Operating LLC, Parkway Generation Keys Energy Center
LLC, Parkway Generation Essex, LLC, OnPoint Energy Pennsylvania, LLC,
OnPoint Energy Ohio LLC, OnPoint Energy Illinois, LLC, New Covert
Generating Company, LLC, Mill Run Windpower, LLC, Meyersdale Windpower
LLC, Chief Keystone Power II, LLC, Chief Conemaugh Power II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Backbone Mountain
Windpower LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20230131-5506.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2042-043; ER10-1858-011; ER10-1862-037; ER10-
1863-012; ER10-1865-017; ER10-1870-011; ER10-1871-012; ER10-1873-017;
ER10-1875-017; ER10-1876-018; ER10-1877-011; ER10-1878-017; ER10-1883-
017; ER10-1884-017; ER10-1885-017; ER10-1888-017; ER10-1889-011; ER10-
1893-037; ER10-1895-011; ER10-1934-037; ER10-1938-038; ER10-1941-017;
ER10-1942-035; ER10-1944-011; ER10-1947-018; ER10-2029-015; ER10-2036-
014; ER10-2040-013; ER10-2041-013; ER10-2043-013; ER10-2044-013; ER10-
2051-013; ER10-2985-041; ER10-3049-042; ER10-3051-042; ER10-3260-013;
ER11-4369-022; ER12-1987-015; ER12-2261-016; ER12-2645-010; ER13-1401-
011; ER13-1407-013; ER14-2931-011; ER16-2218-023; ER17-696-023; ER18-
1321-006; ER19-1127-007; ER20-1699-005; ER20-1939-004.
    Applicants: Calpine Northeast Development, LLC, Johanna Energy
Center, LLC, Calpine King City Cogen, LLC, Calpine Mid-Merit II, LLC,
Calpine Energy Solutions, LLC, North American Power Business, LLC,
Calpine Fore River Energy Center, LLC, CCFC Sutter Energy, LLC,
Westbrook Energy Center, LLC, Pastoria Energy Facility L.L.C., Russell
City Energy Company, LLC, O.L.S. Energy-Agnews, Inc., North American
Power and Gas, LLC, Granite Ridge Energy, LLC, Champion Energy, LLC,
Champion Energy Services, LLC, Champion Energy Marketing LLC, Calpine
Bethlehem, LLC, Zion Energy LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC,
Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC, Calpine
Vineland Solar, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic Marketing, LLC, Otay Mesa
Energy Center, LLC, Bethpage Energy Center 3, LLC, Calpine Construction
Finance Company, L.P., Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P., Calpine Power
America--CA, LLC, CES Marketing IX, LLC, KIAC Partners, CES Marketing
X, LLC, CPN Bethpage 3rd Turbine, Inc., Creed Energy Center, LLC, Delta
Energy Center, LLC, Geysers Power Company, LLC, Gilroy Energy Center,
LLC, Goose Haven Energy Center, LLC, Hermiston Power, LLC, Los Esteros
Critical Energy Facility, LLC, Los Medanos Energy Center LLC, Metcalf
Energy Center, LLC, Morgan Energy Center, LLC, Nissequogue Cogen
Partners, South Point Energy Center, LLC, Pine Bluff Energy, LLC, Power
Contract Financing, L.L.C., TBG Cogen Partners, Calpine Energy
Services, L.P.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Calpine Energy Services,
L.P., et al. under ER10-2042, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20230131-5508.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3859-023; ER14-1154-002; ER14-1699-013; ER18-
1990-004; ER18-2399-004; ER19-1194-003.
    Applicants: Canal 3 Generating LLC, Canal Generating LLC, Stonepeak
Kestrel Energy Marketing LLC, Milford Power, LLC, Bucksport Power LLC,
Dighton Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Dighton Power, LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20230131-5511.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4636-005.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Avista Corporation submits tariff
filing per 35: First Amendment Amended and Restated Colstrip Project to
be effective 2/2/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2386-008; ER10-2847-007; ER14-963-007.
    Applicants: TransAlta Wyoming Wind LLC, TransAlta Centralia
Generation LLC, Lakeswind Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Lakeswind Power
Partners, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20230131-5507.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1332-011; ER17-1314-005; ER10-2398-013; ER10-
2399-013; ER10-2400-017; ER10-2401-011; ER10-2402-010; ER11-3414-011;
ER19-1280-006; ER10-2403-011; ER17-2541-003; ER10-2423-012; ER10-2404-
012; ER14-1933-013; ER20-2714-004; ER10-2405-014; ER10-2406-014; ER17-
2087-009; ER21-714-006; ER16-1152-006; ER19-1281-007; ER14-1594-007;
ER14-1596-007; ER10-2407-010; ER10-2408-008; ER10-2409-013; ER10-2410-
013; ER10-2411-014; ER10-2412-014; ER17-1315-011; ER18-1189-008; ER10-
2414-019; ER11-2935-015; ER16-1724-011; ER19-1282-006; ER10-2425-012;
ER18-1188-006; ER17-1316-008; ER10-2424-010; ER17-1318-007; ER14-1934-
008; ER14-1935-008; ER15-1020-006; ER20-2746-005; ER19-2626-005; ER20-
245-004; ER20-242-004; ER18-1186-007; ER15-1333-010; ER20-246-004.
    Applicants: Windhub Solar A, LLC, Waverly Wind Farm LLC, Turtle
Creek Wind Farm LLC, Sunshine Valley Solar, LLC, Sun Streams, LLC,
Rosewater Wind Farm LLC, Riverstart Solar Park LLC, Rising Tree Wind
Farm III LLC, Rising Tree Wind Farm II LLC, Rising Tree Wind Farm LLC,
Redbed Plains Wind Farm LLC, Rail Splitter Wind Farm, LLC, Quilt Block
Wind Farm LLC, Prairie Queen Wind Farm LLC, Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm
I, LLC, Paulding Wind Farm IV LLC, Paulding Wind Farm III LLC, Paulding
Wind Farm II LLC, Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm VI
LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm V LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV LLC, Meadow
Lake Wind Farm III LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm II LLC, Meadow Lake Wind
Farm LLC, Marble River, LLC, Lost Lakes Wind Farm LLC, Lone Valley
Solar Park II LLC, Lone Valley Solar Park I LLC, Lexington Chenoa Wind
Farm LLC, Jericho Rise Wind Farm LLC, Indiana Crossroads Wind Farm LLC,
Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC, High Trail Wind Farm, LLC, High Prairie
Wind Farm II, LLC, Headwaters Wind Farm II LLC, Headwaters Wind Farm
LLC, Flat Rock Windpower II LLC, Flat Rock Windpower LLC, Estill Solar
I, LLC, Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC, Broadlands Wind Farm LLC, Blue

Canyon Windpower VI LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower V LLC, Blue Canyon
Windpower II LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower LLC, Blackstone Wind Farm II
LLC, Blackstone Wind Farm, LLC, Arkwright Summit Wind Farm LLC,
Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Arbuckle
Mountain Wind Farm LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/23.
    Accession Number: 20230131-5505.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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: February 3, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02763 Filed 2-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74612-74616]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD23-3-000]

Establishing Interregional Transfer Capability Transmission
Planning and Cost Allocation Requirements; Supplemental Notice of
Staff-Led Workshop

    As announced in the Notice of Staff-Led Workshop issued in this
proceeding on October 6, 2022, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) staff will convene a workshop to discuss whether and how
the Commission could establish a minimum requirement for Interregional
Transfer Capability for public utility transmission providers in
transmission planning and cost allocation processes on December 5 and
6, 2022, from approximately 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
    The purpose of this workshop is to consider the question of whether
and how to establish a minimum requirement for Interregional Transfer

Capability. Topics for discussion may include: how to determine the
need for and benefit of setting a minimum requirement for Interregional
Transfer Capability; what to consider in establishing a potential
Interregional Transfer Capability requirement, including who would be
responsible for determining a minimum Interregional Transfer Capability
requirement and what would be the objective and drivers of such a
requirement; what process could be used in establishing a minimum
Interregional Transfer Capability requirement to determine key data
inputs, modeling techniques, and relevant metrics; and how costs for
transmission facilities intended to increase Interregional Transfer
Capability should be allocated and how to ensure a minimum amount of
Interregional Transfer Capability is achieved and maintained.
    While the workshop is not for the purpose of discussing any
specific matters before the Commission, some workshop discussions may
involve issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before
the Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invenergy Transmission LLC.................  AD22-13-000.
Invenergy Transmission LLC v. Midcontinent   EL22-83-000.
 Independent System Operator, Inc.
SOO Green HVDC Link ProjectCo, LLC v. PJM    EL21-85-000, EL21-103-000.
 Interconnection, LLC.
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, PJM      ER22-2690-000, ER22-2690-
 Interconnection, L.L.C.                      001.
Appalachian Power Company, PJM               ER19-2105-005.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC    EL21-39-000.
 and Long Island Power Authority v. PJM
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
WestConnect Public Utilities...............  ER22-1105-000.
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.........  ER22-1606-000.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc..................  ER22-1846-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attached to this Supplemental Notice is an agenda for the workshop,
which includes the workshop program and expected panelists.
    Panelists are asked to submit advance materials to provide any
information related to their respective panel (e.g., summary
statements, reports, whitepapers, studies, or testimonies) that
panelists believe should be included in the record of this proceeding
by November 21, 2022. Panelists should file all advance materials in
the AD23-3-000 docket.
    The workshop will take place virtually, with remote participation
from both presenters and attendees. The workshop will be open to the
public and there is no fee for attendance. Information will also be
posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    The workshop will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be
available for a fee from Ace Reporting<PHONE_NUMBER>). A free webcast
of this event is available through the Commission's website. Anyone
with internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides
technical support for the free webcasts. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email [email protected] if you have any questions.
    Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this workshop, please contact Jessica
Cockrell at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 30, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Staff-Led Workshop Establishing Interregional Transfer Capability
Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation Requirements, Docket No.
AD23-3-000, December 5-6, 2022

Agenda and Speakers

Background
    To aid in our discussion at the workshop, we will use the following
terms:
     For this discussion, the definition of Interregional
Transfer Capability is consistent with total transfer capability as
defined in the Commission's regulations: ``the amount of electric power
that can be moved or transferred reliably from one area to another area
of the interconnected transmission systems by way of all transmission
lines (or paths) between those areas under specified system conditions,
or such definition as contained in Commission-approved Reliability
Standards.'' 18 CFR 37.6(b)(1)(vi) (2021). In the context of
Interregional Transfer Capability, an ``area'' in the above definition
would be a transmission planning region composed of public utility
transmission providers.
     For this discussion, Transfer Transmission Facility is
defined as a transmission facility that increases the amount of
electric power that can be moved or transferred reliably from one
transmission planning region to another by way of all transmission
lines (or paths) between those transmission planning regions. For
purposes of geographic location, a Transfer Transmission Facility may
be located entirely within a single transmission planning region (i.e.,
either a local transmission facility or a regional transmission
facility), or it may span two or more transmission planning regions
(i.e., an interregional transmission facility).
Day One: Monday, December 5, 2022
12:00 p.m.-12:10 p.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks

12:10 p.m.-12:25 p.m.: Presentation from Dr. Dev Millstein, Research
Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Empirical Estimates of
Transmission Value using Locational Marginal Prices

12:25 p.m.-2:25 p.m.: Panel 1: Determining the Need for Additional
Interregional Transfer Capability

    This panel will explore whether the existing transmission planning
and cost allocation and the interregional coordination and cost
allocation processes adequately consider the need to establish a
minimum requirement for Interregional Transfer Capability between
neighboring transmission planning regions. In addition, the panel

will discuss the specific drivers that may necessitate the
establishment of a minimum requirement.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics:
    1. What are the current levels of Interregional Transfer Capability
between transmission planning regions? Is more Interregional Transfer
Capability between transmission planning regions needed? Why or why
not?
    2. Is the potential need for additional Interregional Transfer
Capability currently considered in any transmission planning processes
and if so, how? To the extent such needs are considered, have they
resulted in the development of any transmission facilities?
    3. What are the drivers of the need for increasing Interregional
Transfer Capability? To what extent do these vary based on regional and
system characteristics (e.g., weather patterns, load diversity,
resource mix, etc.)? Are there barriers to identifying or assessing
these drivers?
    4. Is a minimum amount of Interregional Transfer Capability between
transmission planning regions necessary to ensure just and reasonable
Commission-jurisdictional rates? If so, what evidence is there to
support, or negate, that position? How will planning for a minimum
amount of Interregional Transfer Capability produce just and reasonable
rates?
    5. Does the potential need for a minimum amount of Interregional
Transfer Capability differ between RTO and non-RTO regions? Why or why
not? Is a minimum amount of Interregional Transfer Capability necessary
for non-RTO regions?
Panelists
 Neil Millar, Vice President, Infrastructure and Operations
Planning, California Independent System Operator Corporation
 Liza Reed, Ph.D., Research Manager, Electricity Transmission,
Niskanen Center
 Michele Kito, Supervisor, Electric Market Design Section,
California Public Utilities Commission
 Philip D. Moeller, Executive Vice President, Edison Electric
Institute
 Tricia Pridemore, Chairman, Georgia Public Service Commission
 Simon Mahan, Executive Director, Southern Renewable Energy
Association

2:25 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Break

2:45 p.m.-3:00 p.m.: Presentation from Dr. Adria Brooks, U.S.
Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office, Transmission Division

3:00 p.m.-4:55 p.m.: Panel 2: Considerations for Establishing Potential
Interregional Transfer Capability Requirements

    This panel will discuss who would be responsible for determining a
minimum Interregional Transfer Capability requirement and the relevant
considerations for establishing such a requirement, assuming that there
is such a need. Specifically, this panel will focus on identifying the
objective, and drivers, of a minimum Interregional Transfer Capability
requirement. This panel may include a discussion of the following
topics:
    1. What principles should be used to establish a minimum amount of
Interregional Transfer Capability (e.g., should a minimum Interregional
Transfer Capability requirement be determined based on the cost impact
to transmission customers during extreme events, such as extreme
weather, wide-spread loss of fuel supply, etc.)?
    2. To what extent, if any, should the following be considered when
establishing a minimum Interregional Transfer Capability requirement?
    a. Historical or projected extreme events (e.g., extreme weather,
loss of fuel supply, etc.)
    b. Load and resource diversity across a wide geographic area
    c. Anticipated changes in the resource mix and demand
    d. Improved reliability
    e. Avoided production costs
    f. Geographic zones with the potential for large amounts of new
generation
    g. The option value of Transfer Transmission Facilities, as
determined by the increased access to supplemental capacity during
emergency operating conditions.
    h. Increased operator flexibility
    i. Others?
    3. Should planning criteria other than reliability and resilience
be considered in establishing a minimum Interregional Transfer
Capability requirement?
    4. For this question, please consider: (a) public utility
transmission providers in each pair of neighboring transmission
planning regions, (b) the public utility transmission providers in all
of a transmission planning region's neighboring transmission planning
regions, and (c) all public utility transmission providers within an
Interconnection.
    a. What role should the Commission, relevant groupings of public
utility transmission providers described in (a), (b), and (c) above, or
other relevant entities play in determining what, if any, minimum
amount of Interregional Transfer Capability is needed? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
    b. Should the Commission establish a specific formula or planning
process, or instead more general criteria, guidelines, or principles
for public utility transmission providers to follow in establishing a
minimum Interregional Transfer Capability? Should the Commission allow
public utility transmission providers flexibility in whether to work on
a bilateral basis with neighboring regions, or require planning to be
carried out across a broader geography? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of each approach?
    c. Should the principles considered be consistent for (a), (b) or
(c) above? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
    5. How should merchant transmission facility developers and public
utility transmission providers conducting transmission planning avoid
planning duplicative or conflicting transmission facilities to increase
Interregional Transfer Capability?
    6. To what extent, if at all, would a minimum Interregional
Transfer Capability requirement complement or conflict with a potential
new or modified NERC Reliability Standard that requires consideration
of extreme heat and cold events as proposed in Docket No. RM22-10?
    7. Should the establishment of a minimum amount of Interregional
Transfer Capability for non-RTO regions differ from that for RTO
regions? If so, how?
Panelists
 Debra Lew, Ph.D., Associate Director, Energy System
Integration Group
 Aaron Bloom, Executive Director, NextEra Energy Transmission,
LLC
 Laura Rauch, Senior Director, Transmission Planning,
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
 David Kelley, Director of Seams and Tariff Services, Southwest
Power Pool, Inc.
 Saad Malik, Director Reliability Planning, Western Electricity
Coordinating Council
 Deral Danis, Senior Director, Transmission, Pattern Energy
Group LP
 Sharon Segner, Senior Vice President of Transmission Policy,
LS Power Development, LLC

4:55 p.m.-5:00 p.m.: Closing Remarks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Two: Tuesday, December 6, 2022
12:00 p.m.-12:10 p.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks

12:10 p.m.-2:15 p.m.: Panel 3: Process for Establishing Potential
Interregional Transfer Capability Requirements

    This panel will discuss the process for determining a minimum
amount of Interregional Transfer Capability including, but not limited
to, the determination of key data inputs, modeling techniques, and
relevant metrics.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics:
    1. What process should be used to determine a minimum amount of
Interregional Transfer Capability? For example, should the minimum be
(a) derived heuristically from past extreme events; (b) derived using a
probabilistic approach; or (c) based on scenario planning similar to
the requirements proposed for Long-Term Regional Transmission Planning
(Docket No. RM21-17-000) or other deterministic analysis? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
    a. With respect to a probabilistic approach, what are the primary
challenges in developing probabilistic models to determine a minimum
amount of Interregional Transfer Capability? Do current probabilistic
methods model common mode outages appropriately? If not, to what extent
does that reduce the usefulness of a probabilistic approach?
    b. With respect to scenario planning to determine a minimum amount
of Interregional Transfer Capability, what guidelines, if any, are
necessary to ensure that such scenario planning adequately assesses the
need for, and value of, increased Interregional Transfer Capability?
Are certain types of scenarios particularly important to assess the
need for, and value of, Interregional Transfer Capability? Should
scenario planning account for wide-area events and correlated outages,
and if so, how?
    2. After a need for a minimum amount of Interregional Transfer
Capability is determined, what models and data are necessary to
evaluate it? Do public utility transmission providers typically have
access to or collect these models and data? If not, how should public
utility transmission providers acquire these models and data? To
simulate the wide-area impact of extreme events, to what extent should
these models and data represent the overall interconnection?
    3. What criteria should be used to assess whether public utility
transmission providers have sufficient existing transmission facilities
to meet or surpass an Interregional Transfer Capability requirement?
Please specify whether your answer to this question depends on your
answer to question 1 in this panel.
    a. Is there a benefit to using a specific metric of Interregional
Transfer Capability? Potential metrics may include a set amount of
electric power, an amount of electric power relative to some electric
power characteristic of the transmission planning region (like peak
load, or the largest single contingency), among others.
    b. To what extent should public utility transmission providers in a
transmission planning region consider criteria that would help ensure
the ``right amount'' of Interregional Transfer Capability is identified
and sufficient Transfer Transmission Facilities are selected to meet an
Interregional Transfer Capability requirement? For example, should the
criteria used to assess whether public utility transmission providers
meet an Interregional Transfer Capability requirement be informed by
the net-benefits, or other types of measures, of Transfer Transmission
Facilities?
    4. What operational barriers preclude potential Interregional
Transfer Capability from being realized during normal and emergency
system conditions?
Panelists
 Sheila Manz, Ph.D., Technical Director, Decarbonization
Planning, GE Energy Consulting
 Digaunto Chatterjee, Vice President, System Planning,
Eversource Energy
 David Souder, Executive Director, System Planning, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. and Vice Chair, Eastern Interconnection
Planning Collaborative Technical Committee
 Michael Goggin, Vice President, Grid Strategies, LLC, speaking
on behalf of the American Clean Power Association
 Nicolas Koehler, Director, Transmission Planning, American
Electric Power Company
 Christopher Clack, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, Vibrant
Clean Energy, LLC

2:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Break

2:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Panel 4: Meeting the Goal of Increased
Interregional Transfer Capability

    This panel will discuss how costs for Transfer Transmission
Facilities should be allocated and how to ensure a minimum amount of
Interregional Transfer Capability is achieved and maintained.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics:
    1. How should cost allocation for Transfer Transmission Facilities
be determined? For example, should public utility transmission
providers in a transmission planning region be required to allocate the
costs of Transfer Transmission Facilities: (1) within their own
transmission planning region; (2) jointly with two or more neighboring
transmission planning regions; (3) at an Interconnection-wide level; or
(4) via some other process? What are the advantages or disadvantages of
each approach? Should there be a process in place for the Commission to
establish a cost allocation method for Transfer Transmission Facilities
if the public utility transmission providers in (1), (2), or (3) above
cannot agree?
    a. How should the process for evaluating, selecting, and allocating
the costs of Transfer Transmission Facilities align with current
regional transmission planning and interregional transmission
coordination processes (e.g., should the process be a part of existing
transmission planning and cost allocation and/or coordination and cost
allocation processes or should it be a separate process)?
    2. How would public utility transmission providers in a
transmission planning region demonstrate that they have met the minimum
Interregional Transfer Capability requirement?
    3. What process would public utility transmission providers in (a)
a transmission planning region, (b) a pair of transmission planning
regions, or (c) a broader collection of neighboring planning regions
use to identify and select Transfer Transmission Facilities?
    4. Should the Commission reexamine the minimum Interregional
Transfer Capability requirement or the required process to identify and
select Transfer Transmission Facilities at some point in the future
(e.g., in 10 years)?
    5. What, if any, categories of benefits should public utility
transmission providers be required to consider when evaluating Transfer
Transmission Facilities for selection for purposes of cost allocation?
    a. Should the benefits considered be consistent between (a) public
utility transmission providers in each pair of neighboring transmission
planning regions, (b) the public utility transmission providers in all
of a transmission planning region's neighboring transmission planning
regions, or (c) all public utility transmission providers within an
Interconnection? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each
approach?

    6. Should the Commission prescribe a standard, or principles to
govern the selection of Transfer Transmission Facilities for purposes
of cost allocation?
    7. Should the Commission require public utility transmission
providers to use a portfolio approach for selecting Transfer
Transmission Facilities to meet a minimum amount of Interregional
Transfer Capability?
    8. What rules, if any, should the Commission promulgate with regard
to establishing a cost allocation method for Transfer Transmission
Facilities?
    a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Commission
requiring a specific ex ante regional and/or interregional cost
allocation method for Transfer Transmission Facilities?
    b. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Commission
requiring a specific ex post regional and/or interregional cost
allocation method or a hybrid (i.e., part ex ante and part ex post) for
Transfer Transmission Facilities?
    c. Should the Commission decline to prescribe an ex ante or ex post
cost allocation method for applicable public utility transmission
providers, what process should govern the establishment of cost
allocation rules for any particular Transfer Transmission Facility?
    9. What role should state and local governmental entities play in
the public utility transmission provider process for selection and cost
allocation for Transfer Transmission Facilities? Should the states'
role in selection and cost allocation be determined by the drivers of
the need for a minimum requirement for Transfer Transmission
Facilities? For example, if the Transfer Transmission Facilities are
planned to serve public policy goals, such as renewable generation
deployment, should the states have a role in cost allocation, such as
that proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in RM21-17?
    10. Are there barriers to the ability of interregional merchant
transmission facilities in providing a minimum amount of Interregional
Transfer Capability? For example, do contractual or tariff limitations
prevent merchant interregional high-voltage direct current transmission
facilities from supporting reliability during extreme events?
Panelists
 Kris Zadlo, Chief Development Officer, Grid United
 Travis Kavulla, Vice President Regulatory Affairs, NRG Energy,
Inc.
 Shashank Sane, Executive Vice President, Transmission,
Invenergy
 Rob Gramlich, Founder and President, Grid Strategies, LLC
 Andrew French, Commissioner, Kansas Corporation Commission
 J. Arnold Quinn, Chief Economist, Vistra Corp.

4:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m.: Closing Remarks
[FR Doc. 2022-26474 Filed 12-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

for

U.S. COAST GUARD INTERNATIONAL ICE PATROL (IIP)

CUSTOMER SURVEY

OMB No.:  1625-0087

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  CG-16700 and Instruction

Justification

Circumstances that make collection of information necessary:

The International Ice Patrol monitors the extent of the iceberg danger
near the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and provides iceberg warnings to
the maritime community by broadcasting the southeastern, southern, and
southwestern limits of all known ice in two message bulletins and one
radio-facsimile chart each day.  Executive Order 12862 directs the
United States Coast Guard (USGC) to conduct surveys (both qualitative
and quantitative) to determine the kind and quality of services our
customers want and expect, as well as their satisfaction with USCG’s
existing services.  This survey will be limited to data collections that
solicit strictly voluntary opinions and will not collect information
that is required or regulated. USCG is requesting approval to conduct
this customer satisfaction survey over the next three years.

Purpose of the information collection:

The USCG will use the information collected to measure customer
satisfaction with current services and service standards.  This
information will allow USCG to improve service delivery and learn of
additional services suggested by our customers.  This customer
satisfaction survey may lead to policy changes which may enhance
USCG’s overall operations.

Consideration of the use of improved technology:

Improved information technology will be used whenever possible to reduce
the burden on the public.  There are no technical or legal obstacles to
reducing this burden. Electronic data solicitation and collection will
be used to the maximum extent possible to reduce the burden on the
respondents.  The survey form may be submitted by fax, e-mail, or
on-line submission via  HYPERLINK
"http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=contactIIP"
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=contactIIP  or by regular mail.

Efforts to identify duplication:

 This information is not collected in any form, and therefore is not
duplicated elsewhere.

Methods to minimize the burden to small entities if involved:

Some small businesses or small entities may be asked to evaluate their
satisfaction with USCG services.  Their participation will be strictly
voluntary and the burden minimized with solicitation of the minimal
amount of information needed to evaluate the USCG’s performance in
their area of concern.

Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted less
frequently:

The continuing requirements of Executive Order 12862 dictate an annual
evaluation of services and customer satisfaction. Failure to conduct
these surveys on an annual basis would violate the intent of the
Executive Order and prevent the USCG from continually improving the
level of services provided to its customers.

Special collection circumstances:

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

Consultation:

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

Provide any payment or gift to respondents:

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

Describe any assurance of confidentiality provide to respondents:

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.  There is no personally identifiable
information associated with this collection however, information will be
retained and safeguarded in accordance with NARA record retention
schedule.

Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature:

There are no questions of sensitive language.

Estimate of annual hour and cost burdens to respondents:

The estimated number of respondents is 300.  There is an estimated
24-minute burden to a respondent so the total potential burden on the
public is estimated to be 120 hours.  The annual burden is also
estimated to be 120 hours.  The annual cost to respondents is estimated
to be $2475 broken down as follows: $20 per hour for 120 hours (subtotal
of $2400) for personal time spent completing survey, $1.00 per response
transmitted by fax or $1.00 per response returned by mail (75 total
fax/email responses for a subtotal of $75) and no cost for the responses
returned on-line (225 responses).

Total of annualized capital and start-up costs:

There are no record keeping, capital, start-up or maintenance costs
associated with this information collection.

Estimate of annualized Federal government cost:

We estimate total annual costs to the Federal Government as zero.  The
distribution of paper copies of the survey in the Amver Bulletin is zero
since the publication is covered by a blank contract.  Distribution of
surveys by the web is also zero because the USCG web page is a fixed
cost.  No additional USCG personnel will be needed to process and
analyze these surveys.

Explanation of program changes or adjustments:

There is no change in burden hours.  This request is for an extension of
a currently approved collection without change.  There is no proposed
change to the reporting requirements of this collection.  The reporting
requirements and the methodology for calculating burden, remain
unchanged.

Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication:

The results of these surveys will be published in the International Ice
Patrol (IIP) Annual Report and on the IIP web site,  HYPERLINK
"http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=IIPHome"
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=IIPHome .

Approval to not display expiration date:

USCG will display the expiration date for OMB approval of this
information collection.

Exceptions to certification statement:

USCG does not request an exception to the certification of this
information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

1625-0087


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

8/27/15

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Test Procedure Review with the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and Global Automakers

FROM: Christopher Laroo

TO:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memo documents communication on August 27, 2015 between
representatives of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Global
Automakers, and EPA to discuss light-duty vehicle test procedures in 40
CFR part 1066 proposed in the Phase 2 greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency
standards for heavy-duty vehicles notice of proposed rulemaking.  The
draft part 1066 working document and e-mail is enclosed.

The discussion topic included test procedures in 40 CFR part 1066
specifically as it pertains to partial flow sampling systems for PM
measurement.  The procedure modifications provide a methodology for use
of partial flow sampling systems utilizing the single filter per test
sampling methodology, without having to flow weight flow over the filter
in phases 1 and 3 of the FTP.  Rather the dilution fraction is
increased.  The draft partial flow test procedure was shared with
Giedrius Ambrozaitis and Julia Rege for distribution to their members.