INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF AIR & RADIATION

A.	JUSTIFICATION

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

a.	Title:  Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2011 Renewable Fuel
Standards - Petition for International Aggregate Compliance Approach –
(RENEWAL)

EPA Number:  2398.03

OMB Control Number 2060-0655

b. Short characterization:

This regulation has a provision that EPA will use to authorize renewable
fuel producers using certain foreign-grown feedstocks to use an
aggregate approach to comply with the renewable biomass verification
provisions, akin to that applicable to producers using crops and crop
residue grown in the United States.  For this authorization, foreign
based entities may petition EPA for approval of the aggregate compliance
approach for specified renewable fuel feedstocks either in a foreign
country as a whole or in a specified geographical area.  This petition
request for the aggregate compliance approach for foreign-grown crops
and crop residue is voluntary, though, if approved by EPA, will offer
the benefit that certain renewable biomass produced in a foreign country
or geographical area can be counted as feedstock to make renewable fuel
for credit under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) program.

2.  Need For, and Use of, the Collection

Authority for the Collection

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Sections 114 and 208 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§
7414 and 7542, authorize EPA to require recordkeeping and reporting
regarding enforcement of the provisions of Title II of the CAA.  The
relevant regulations are in 40 CFR Part 80, Renewable Fuel Standard.

	b.	Practical Utility/Uses of the Data

	The data collected under this ICR will be used for EPA to
evaluate/grant petitions.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria

	a. 	Non-duplication

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication
in this information collection. Where possible, information requirements
from various organizations within the Agency have been combined to
minimize the submittal of duplicate information in different formats.
The information in this collection will not be available from another
source.

	b. 	Public Notice

EPA is seeking comment on reporting requirements via Notice.  We have
also docketed a copy of our draft ICR supporting statement.

	c. 	Consultations

	We draw upon our experience with the Renewable Fuel Program and have
utilized the estimates used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures
from "National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment & Wage Estimate
“Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing” (May 2011).  The
estimated burden is based upon similar petitioning processes used within
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.

	d. 	Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

	This data collection is necessary in order to permit a petitioning
process to function for foreign renewable fuel producers to comply with
the renewable biomass verification provision.  We anticipate only one
response per respondent.  The information collected will be received
from foreign based entities seeking an authorization to use specified
renewable fuel feedstocks. The information in this collection is not
available from another source.

	e. 	General Guidelines

	This rule does exceed the OMB guidelines. EPA requests an exception to
the OMB guidelines that agencies may only require records to be
maintained for no more than three years. Records can be kept either
electronically or on paper. EPA needs to make sure regulated parties
keep records long enough to be evaluated for compliance during this time
period.  Section 40 CFR Part 80.1454(l) requires record retention for
five years from the date the records were created. Any information
claimed as confidential will be treated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2
and established Agency procedures.  Information that is received without
a claim of confidentiality may be made available to the public without
further

	f.	Confidentiality

	Respondents may assert claims of business confidentiality (CBI) for any
or all of the information they submit. We do not believe that most
respondents would characterize the information they submit to us under
this information collection as CBI.  However, any information claimed as
confidential will be treated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2 and
established Agency procedures.  Information that is received without a
claim of confidentiality may be made available to the public without
further notice to the submitter under 40 CFR § 2.203.

g.	Sensitive Information

	This information collection does not require submission of any
sensitive information.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

	a.	Respondents/SIC Codes

	Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are those involved
with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels,
including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as ethanol
and biodiesel.  In the case of these petitions, we anticipate that they
may come from foreign trade associations or governmental entities.
Potentially regulated categories include:

Category	NAICS1 Codes	SIC2 Codes	Examples of Potentially Regulated
Entities

Industry

Industry

Industry

Industry

Industry

Industry

Industry	324110

325193

325199

424690

424710

424720

454319	2911

2869

2869

5169

5171

5172

5989	Petroleum Refineries

Ethyl alcohol manufacturing

Other basic organic chemical manufacturing

Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers

Petroleum bulk stations and terminals

Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers

Other fuel dealers

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

2 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

	b.	Information Requested

		A)	Reporting:  No form is to be developed for this petition process.
Specific items of information to be requested are outlined in the
regulation.

		B)	Recordkeeping:  For the RFS2 program, respondents retain records
for a period of not less than five (5) years.

5.  The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

a.	Agency Activities

All petitions will be reviewed by EPA.

Petitions will be stored by EPA.

A response (grant, denial, etc.) will be issued by EPA.

b. 	Collection Methodology and Management

	The information collected will be in the form of a petition.  No
standard form is to be developed.  As mentioned above, we do not
anticipate that this information will come in under a CBI claim;
however, that is a possibility and we will treat all such information in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 2 and established Agency procedures for
handling CBI.  Information claimed as CBI will be stored in
appropriately controlled areas.

c.	Small Entity Flexibility

	This collection will not adversely affect small entities.

d.	Collection Schedule

	We anticipate each petitioner will submit one petition.

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection

a.	Estimating the Respondent Universe

	We estimate 15 petitions will be received from 15 countries or
geographical areas during the three years covered by this proposed ICR.

b.	Estimating the Respondent Burden and Cost

	Three labor categories are involved:  managerial (includes legal and
professional review), technical, and clerical. The estimates used the
Bureau of Labor Statistics figures from "National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment & Wage Estimate “Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing” (May 2011), with a 3% annual inflation factor applied
to bring the values to the present.  Using this method, the following
wages and benefits apply by category:

Wages and Benefits

Managerial    		$67.44   per hour

Technical		$65.56   per hour

Clerical		$22.17   per hour

Doubling for company overhead beyond wages and benefits, and for
convenience, rounding up to the dollar, gives the following rates for
this ICR:

Total Employer Cost

Managerial		$135.00 per hour

Technical		$131.00 per hour

Clerical		 $ 44.00 per hour

It is assumed that for each hour of activity the mix will be about 0.1
hour managerial, 0.7 hour technical, and 0.2 hour clerical.  This gives
an average labor cost of $114 per hour, which will be used in this ICR.
For purchased services related to attest engagements and some items of
registration, we have doubled this hourly cost to $228 in order to more
accurately reflect the cost of a certified public accountant (CPA) or
licensed professional engineer's (PE) services.

We estimate that each petition will take 40 hours to prepare.  Since the
ICR covers a three year period, the annual hourly burden is divided by
three to yield 13.33 hours per year per respondent. The total annual
burden by party is estimated as follows:

Information Collection Burden by Type of Party

Information Collection	Number of Parties

(countries)	Number of Responses

Per Party	Total Number of Responses	Time Per Response	Cost Per Response
Total Hours	Total Cost

Petition for International aggregate compliance	15	1	15	13.33	1519.62
199.95	22794.3

	Total	15

15

	199.95	22794.30

Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	No response is required to notifications unless a potential violation
is noted.  This activity will present no significant, quantifiable
burden to the Agency.  We have drawn upon our experiences with the
Renewable Fuel Standard Provision and estimate no more than 15
notifications with an annual burden of 300 burden hours per year and for
three years 900 burden hours.  We have two full-time GS-13 technical
workers working 8 hours per response, and a GS-15 manager all working 4
hours of his/her time managing this project per response.

The Agency burden consist of two GS-13 technical worker $81.55 an hour
including overhead, and a GS-15 manager $ 113.36 an hour including
overhead for an Agency burden of $ 1,758.24 per response. With an annual
total of $26,373.60

 These estimates are derived from "OPM Salary Table 2010-DCB," effective
January 2010.  This table may be found at
http://archive.opm.gov/oca/10tables/html/RUS-h.asp.  The extreme of step
10 was assumed for all categories.  All values were multiplied by 1.6
(which is a common factor utilized in ICRs to account for overhead
costs). We rounded the resulting dollar value to the nearest tenth.

We have assumed that each response will require 16 hours of technical
staff time (two staff FTE, working eight hours each) to review and
prepare the written response.  It is estimated that one or more managers
will be required to expend a total of 4 hours per response.  Contractors
will not be used to handle these applications and are not included.

Agency Burden

d.	Estimating the Respondent Universe

	We based our estimate upon the number of petitions we expect to receive
and invite further comment from interested parties.

e.	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

	From the Table on page 6 we estimate the following:

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS:  15

TOTAL NO. OF RESPONSES:   15

TOTAL BURDEN HOURS (ANNUAL):   200*

TOTAL COST (ANNUAL):  $22,794*

(*Rounded up to the next hour or dollar from the Information Collection
Request Burden by Type of Party table above.)

f.	Reason for Change in Burden

There is no increase of hours in the total estimated respondent burden
compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The respondent universe
and responses also remained the same in this collection.  There was in
increase in cost to the industry of $8,598 per year due to better
numbers used to calculate the industry burden and to account for
inflation.

g.	Burden Statement

	The average respondent burden in hours per respondent, per year, for
this ICR is estimated at 14 hours (i.e., 13.33 hours from the table,
rounded up).

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review the instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transit or otherwise disclose the information.

	An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  To comment on the Agency's need for this
information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for
this ICR under Docket ID Number   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html" \l
"docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133"  EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133 , which is
available for online viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
 www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation is (202)
566-1742.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html" \l
"docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133"  EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133  and OMB
Control Number 2060-0655 in any correspondence.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE DOCKETING FORM NAME OF GROUP: Various Environmental Organizations MEETING___ XX__ SPEECH_____ PHONE CALL_____

DATE: September 13, 2004 LOCATION OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL: EPA, Washington DC, Ariel Rios North Building PURPOSE OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL:

The purpose of the this meeting was to hold an informal roundtable session with several environmental groups. A broad range of topics were covered, and the mercury issues spoken of were not covered in great detail. They included the question of what analyses would be forthcoming in the NODA ( notice of data availability), and a discussion of section 111 versus 112 approaches.

ATTENDEES:

From EPA: Jeff Holmstead Ben Hengst Bob Meyers Bill Wehrum Melanie LaCount Jason Burnett Steve Page Sam Napolitano Don Zinger John Silvasi Non EPA: Zach Corrigan, U. S. Public Interest Research Group Melissa Kemp, Public Citizen Steve Nadel, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Kara Saul Rinaldi, Alliance to Save Energy Sarah Gourde, Coalition for Env. Safe Communities Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information & Resource Service Nat Mund, Sierra Club COMMENTS:

ATTACHMENTS ( HANDOUTS): None


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69603-69604]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 1 and 16

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0146]
RIN 0910-AG66

Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bodies To
Conduct Food Safety Audits and To Issue Certifications; Extension of
Comment Periods

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period for the proposed
rule and for its information collection provisions.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the proposed rule, and for the information
collection related to the proposed rule entitled ``Accreditation of
Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bodies to Conduct Food Safety Audits
and to Issue Certifications'' that appeared in the Federal Register of
July 29, 2013. We are taking this action in response to requests for an
extension to allow interested persons an opportunity to consider the
interrelationship between this proposed rule and the proposed rule
announced in October 2013 entitled ``Current Good Manufacturing
Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for
Food for Animals.'' We also are taking this action to keep the comment
period for the information collection provisions associated with the
rule consistent with the comment period for the proposed rule.

DATES: For the proposed rule published on July 29, 2013 (78 FR 45782),
submit either electronic or written comments by January 27, 2014.
Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) by January 27, 2014 (see the
``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' section of this document).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2011-
N-0146 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0910-AG66, by any of
the following methods, except that comments on information collection
issues under the PRA must be submitted to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (see the
``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' section of this document).

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency
name, Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0146, and RIN 0910-AG66 for this
rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the
``Request for Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    With regard to the proposed rule: Charlotte Christin, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4234, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
240-402-3708.
    With regard to the information collection: Domini Bean, Office of
Information Management, Food and

Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400T, Rockville, MD 20850,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of July 29, 2013 (78 FR 45782), we
published a proposed rule entitled ``Accreditation of Third-Party
Auditors/Certification Bodies to Conduct Food Safety Audits and to
Issue Certifications'' with a 120-day comment period on the provisions
of the proposed rule and on the information collection provisions that
are subject to review by OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
    FDA has received requests for an extension of the comment period on
the proposed rule to allow interested persons an opportunity to
consider the interrelationship between this proposed rule and the
proposed rule entitled ``Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard
Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals'' (78
FR 64736, October 29, 2013). FDA has considered the requests and is
granting a 60-day extension of the comment period for the
``Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bodies to Conduct
Food Safety Audits and to Issue Certifications'' proposed rule to allow
interested persons an opportunity to consider the interrelationships
between the proposed rules. We also are extending the comment period
for the information collection provisions for 60 days to make the
comment period for the information collection provisions the same as
the comment period for the provisions of the proposed rule. To clarify,
FDA is requesting comment on all issues raised by the proposed rule.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Interested persons may either submit electronic comments regarding
the information collection to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax
written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>. All comments should be
identified with the title ``Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors/
Certification Bodies to Conduct Food Safety Audits and to Issue
Certifications.''

III. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the proposed rule to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to
the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only
necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to
the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 13, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-27644 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: PV Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Advanced Polymer Technology

2E8040

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (2E8040)  from Advanced Polymer Technology, 109 Conica Lane, P.O. Box 160, Harmony, PA  16037  proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid (CAS Reg. No. 1357486-09-9),  3,748 amu under  40 CFR 180.960 when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations as a solubilizer without  limitations. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Advanced Polymer Technology is petitioning that Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid be exempt from the requirement of a tolerance based upon the definition of a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250.  Therefore, plant metabolism in treated crops is not relevant.

	2. Analytical method. Advanced Polymer Technology is petitioning that Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid be exempt from the requirement of a tolerance based upon the definition of a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250.  Therefore, an analytical method to determine residues on treated crops is not relevant.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Advanced Polymer Technology is petitioning that Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid be exempt from the requirement of a tolerance based upon the definition of a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250.  Therefore, magnitude of residues on treated crops is not relevant.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  No toxicological data is submitted with, or referenced in this tolerance exemption petition because Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid meets the definition of a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250.

1. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid is a polymer molecule as defined by 40 CFR 723.250(b).   That is, it contains a sequence of at least 3 monomer units which are covalently bound to at least one other monomer unit or other reactant.

2. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid has a number average molecular weight of 20,000 and contains less than 0.1 percent oligomeric material below molecular weight 500 and 1,000 molecular weight.

3. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid is not a cationic polymer and is not anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

4. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid only contains the elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen; therefore, it meets the criteria for elemental composition.

5. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid 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).

6. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid is not designed or reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize under normal use conditions.

7. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or other reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemptions.

8. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid is not a water-absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight above 10,000 Daltons.

9. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid contains no reactive functional groups that fail to meet the low-risk polymer exemption criteria under 40 CFR 723.250(e).]

	2. Genotoxicty. [NA-Remove]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [NA-Remove]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [NA-Remove]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [NA-Remove]

	6. Animal metabolism. [NA-Remove]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [NA-Remove]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [NA-Remove]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. The physical and chemical characteristics of Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid  lead to the conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to the polymer from food or drinking water.

	i. Food. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid  with molecular weight in the range of 200-9500 has clearances under 21CFR 178.3750.

	ii. Drinking water. [NA-Remove]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. The physical and chemical characteristics of Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid lead to the conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to the polymer from exposure to the polymer through non-dietary means.

D. Cumulative Effects.  Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid is a low-risk polymer.  There is no information at this time to suggest that any toxic effects produced by this inert ingredient would be cumulative with any other chemical.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid meets all the criteria for qualification as a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250. Adverse effects on the U.S. population are not expected from the use of this inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.

	2. Infants and children. Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid is a low-risk polymer. No adverse effects are expected from use of this inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.  Based on the physical and chemical properties of the molecule, there is no reason to believe that infants and children will be disproportionately at risk.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no known U.S. or international tolerances for Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic acid and ricinoleic acid.


[Federal Register: April 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 22160-22161]
[DOCID:fr24ap08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0308]

Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee; Meetings

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee
(HOGANSAC) and its working groups will meet in Houston, Texas to
discuss waterway improvements, aids to navigation, area projects
impacting safety on the Houston Ship Channel, and various other
navigation safety matters in the Galveston Bay area. These meetings
will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 9 a.m. The
meeting of the Committee's working groups will be held on Thursday May
8, 2008 at 9 a.m. These meetings may close early if all business is
finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations
should reach the Coast Guard at least five (5) working days before the
meeting. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each
member of the committee or working group should reach the Coast Guard
at least ten (10) working days before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The full Committee meeting and working groups meetings will
be held at the Houston Pilots Association, 8150 South Loop East,
Houston, Texas 77011-1747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send written material and
requests to make oral presentations to Captain William Diehl,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of HOGANSAC, 9640 Clinton Drive,
Houston, Texas 77029. This notice may be viewed in our online docket,
USCG-2008-0308 at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Hal R. Pitts, Assistant to
the DFO of HOGANSAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lieutenant Sean Hughes, telephone (713) 678-
9001, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of these meetings is given pursuant
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agendas of the Meetings

    Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (HOGANSAC).
The tentative agenda is as follows:
    (1) Opening remarks by the Committee Sponsor (RADM Whitehead) or
the Committee Sponsor's representative, DFO (CAPT Diehl) and
Chairperson (Ms. Tava Foret).
    (2) Approval of the 26 February 2008 minutes.
    (3) Old Business:
    (a) Navigation Operations (NAVOPS)/Maritime Incident
    Review subcommittee report;
    (b) Deep Draft Entry Facilitation (DDEF) subcommittee report;
    (c) Dredging subcommittee report;
    (d) Technology subcommittee report;
    (e) Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) Liaison's report;
    (f) Harbor of Safe Refuge subcommittee report;
    (g) HOGANSAC Outreach report;
    (h) Maritime Awareness subcommittee report.
    (4) New Business:
    Working Groups Meeting. The tentative agenda for the working groups
meeting is as follows:
    (1) Presentation by each working group of its accomplishments and
plans for the future;
    (2) Review and discuss the work completed by each working group;
    (3) Put forth any action items for consideration at the full
committee meeting.
    Working groups have been formed to examine the following issues:
Dredging and related issues, electronic navigation systems, aids to
navigation (AtoN) knockdowns, impact of passing vessels on moored
ships, boater education issues, facilitating deep draft movements,
mooring infrastructure, and harbor of safe refuge. Not all working
groups will provide a report at this session. Further, working group
reports may not necessarily include discussions on all issues within
the particular working group's area of responsibility.
    Procedural: All meetings are open to the public. Please note that
the meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the
Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations
during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at
a meeting, please notify the Assistant DFO at least five (5) working
days before the meeting. Written material for distribution at a meeting
should reach the Coast Guard at least ten (10) working days before the
meeting. If you would like a copy of

your material distributed to each member of the committee or working
group in advance of a meeting, please submit 19 copies to the DFO at
least ten (10) working days before the meeting.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact
the Assistant DFO as soon as possible.

    Dated: April 15, 2008.
J.H. Korn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. E8-8859 Filed 4-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70817-70818]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1039]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River,
Dubuque, IA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi
River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque, Iowa. The deviation is necessary to
allow the bridge owner time to perform preventive maintenance that is
essential to the continued safe operation of the drawbridge.
Maintenance is scheduled in the winter and when there is less impact on
navigation; instead of scheduling work in the summer, when river
traffic increases. This deviation allows the bridge to open on signal
if at least 24 hours advance notice is given.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m., December 13, 2010
to 7 a.m. March 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1039 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1039 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad
requested a temporary deviation for the Illinois Central Railroad
Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque,
Iowa to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given for
79 days from 12:01 a.m., December 13, 2010 to 7 a.m., March 1, 2011 to
allow the bridge owner time for preventive maintenance. The Illinois
Central Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33
CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that drawbridges shall
open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to
open is given in accordance with the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the
closure of Army Corps of Engineer's Lock No. 20 (Mile 343.2 UMR), Lock
No. 21 (Mile 324.9 UMR) and Lock No. 22 (Mile 301.2 UMR) until 4:30
p.m., March 4, 2011 will preclude any significant navigation demands
for the drawspan opening.
    The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-
navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 19.9 feet above
normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of
commercial tows and recreational watercraft. The drawbridge will open
if at least 24 hours advance notice is given. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular

operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time
period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized
under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 10, 2010.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-29166 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77040-77042]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31604]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65889; File No. SR-NYSE-2011-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending NYSE Rule 72 Priority of Bids and Offers and Allocation of
Executions

December 5, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 21, 2011, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 72 (Priority of Bids and
Offers and Allocation of Executions). The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, at http://www.nyse.com, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and at http://www.sec.gov.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 72 (Priority of Bids and
Offers and Allocation of Executions).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The provisions of Rule 72 are in effect during a pilot
(``New Market Model Pilot'') that is set to end on January 31, 2012.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (October 24, 2008), 73
FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 60756 (October 1, 2009), 74 FR 51628
(October 7, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-100) (extending Pilot to November
30, 2009); 61031 (November 19, 2009), 74 FR 62368 (November 27,
2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-113) (extending Pilot to March 30, 2010); 61724
(March 17, 2010), 75 FR 14221 (March 24, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-25)
(extending Pilot to September 30, 2010); 62819 (September 1, 2010),
75 FR 54937 (September 9, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-61) (extending Pilot
to January 31, 2011); 63616 (December 29, 2010), 76 FR 612 (January
5, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2010-86) (extending Pilot to August 1, 2011); and
64761 (June 28, 2011), 76 FR 39147 (July 5, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-29)
(extending Pilot to January 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided under Rule 72(a)(ii), a bid or offer is considered the
``setting interest'' when it is established as the only displayable bid
or offer made at a particular price and is the only

displayable interest when such price is or becomes the Exchange best
bid or offer (``BBO''). Setting interest is entitled to priority for
allocation of executions at that price, as provided for under NYSE Rule
72. In this regard, and as currently provided for under NYSE Rule
72(a)(ii)(G), if non-pegging interest is the setting interest, it
retains its priority even if joined at that price by a pegging e-
Quote.\6\ If, however, at the time non-pegging interest becomes the
Exchange BBO, an e-Quote is pegging to such non-pegging interest, all
such interest is considered to be entered simultaneously and,
therefore, no interest is considered the setting interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 70.26--Pegging for d-Quotes and e-Quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since implementing this rule as part of the New Market Model Pilot,
the Exchange has determined that Rule 72(a)(ii) may currently
disincentivize aggressive displayed quoting by permitting pegging e-
Quotes to eliminate the priority to which a non-pegging e-Quote might
otherwise be entitled. Specifically, because pegging interest is not
displayed until it joins non-pegging interest, the participant entering
the non-pegging interest is unaware that one or more pegging e-Quotes
at that price may exist. Because the goal of the setting interest, and
related priority given to such interest, is to create an incentive for
participants to display aggressive prices, a participant may be
reluctant to enter such displayed interest if a non-displayed pegging
e-Quote could impede such displayed interest from receiving priority.
The Exchange therefore proposes to amend NYSE Rule 72(a)(ii)(G) to
reflect that non-pegging interest that becomes the Exchange BBO will be
considered the setting interest even if an e-Quote is pegging to such
non-pegging interest.\7\ In this regard, the Exchange believes that
this proposed change would enhance the New Market Model's positive
impact on the Exchange's market, on the Exchange's members, and on
investors generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Non-pegging interest that is the setting interest will
continue to retain its priority even if joined at that price by a
pegging e-Quote. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the related technology changes that this proposed rule
change would require, the Exchange proposes to announce the initial
implementation date and related roll-out schedule, if applicable, via
Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\9\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change meets these requirements because
it would permit non-pegging interest that sets a new BBO to be
considered the setting interest and therefore retain priority, as
provided for under NYSE Rule 72, over a pegging e-Quote that reacts and
pegs to such non-pegging interest. Accordingly, the proposal is
designed to incentivize and reward aggressive displayed quoting by
market participants, which contributes to the market quality of the
Exchange. In this regard, the Exchange believes that this proposed
change would enhance the New Market Model's positive impact on the
Exchange's market, on the Exchange's members, and on investors
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2011-60 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2011-60. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and

copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2011-60 and should be submitted on
or before December 30, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31604 Filed 12-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 75152]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30582]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9763-5]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
EPA gives notice of a teleconference meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and
Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). The FRRCC is a policy-oriented
committee that provides policy advice, information, and recommendations
to the EPA Administrator on a range of environmental issues and
policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
    The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss specific topics of
relevance for consideration by the Committee in order to provide advice
and insights to the Agency on environmental policies and programs that
affect and engage agriculture and rural communities.

DATES: The Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee will hold a
public teleconference on Thursday, January 17, 2013 from 2:00 p.m.
until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal
Officer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-564-7273, US EPA, Office of the
Administrator (1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public wishing to gain access
to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written
statement to the FRRCC must contact Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal
Officer, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> by January 4, 2013.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations please
contact Alicia Kaiser at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: December 7, 2012.
Alicia Kaiser,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-30582 Filed 12-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 2 3 4 5 6 Radiation Protection Standards Applicable to Yucca Mountain 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 P U B L I C H E A R I N G & C O M M E N T S 16 17 18 19 20 October 3, 2005 21 2 1 ELIZABETH COTSWORTH: As most of you in the audience know, 2 I am Elizabeth Cotsworth. I'm the Director of the Office of Radiation and 3 Indoor Air at EPA. The Administrator of the Agency has asked me to 4 represent him at these public hearings and to hear the comments of you 5 and fellow citizens for the next couple of days in Las Vegas on our August 6 22nd proposal for radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain. I 7 won't share the background and summary of our rule   which most of you 8 heard as we sat around and had our public meeting   I think we'll go 9 directly into our public hearing format. Let me also introduce Betsy 10 Fornash, who is the head of the Yucca Mountain team in my office   who 11 is the key person responsible for the proposed standard on which some of 12 you will be commenting tonight, and finally I'll turn this over to Doug Sarno 13 who will preside as our Hearing Officer for this formal public hearing and 14 Doug will share the ground rules on how this public hearing will actually 15 flow. Doug? 16 17 DOUG SARNO: Thank you, Elizabeth, and we don't have a whole 18 lot of folks signed up so we'll be a little more flexible. Our rules are set up 19 so that the maximum number of people can have an opportunity to speak 20 and to have their comments placed in the record, and to be sure that no 21 one individual or group would monopolize the time, but that's not going to 22 be a problem here tonight. So, if instead of five minutes, you need six and 23 3 a half, I think we can manage such a thing, but I will still give you a 1 warning. Individuals will get five minutes and if you are representing an 2 organization, then you get ten minutes. I will give you a 2 minute and a 3 one minute warning that looks like this so that I don't have to interrupt you, 4 so if you're paying attention to me you'll see those. I'll call time, but if you 5 need to finish a statement, by all means, we'll let you do that. Also, if you 6 have much longer comments than can reasonably fit into five minutes, as 7 we said earlier there's lots of other ways to get into the record. Getting 8 into the record at this hearing is absolutely no different than getting on the 9 record using one of the three comment stations in the back, or sending in 10 your comments directly to EPA via phone, fax, courier, email, on the 11 internet   there's a lot of different ways and the fact sheet number three I 12 believe talks about all those different ways and gives you that opportunity, 13 so there's absolutely no restriction to getting your full and total comments 14 on the record. And everything that's on the record will be considered 15 equally by EPA. Just because you came out here and were able to speak, 16 doesn't mean that it's any more or less influential than any other forms of 17 comment. So I just want to make sure everybody knows that there are 18 lots of ways, and those of you who talk to others who don't want to come 19 out to these hearings, please let them know that the comment period ends 20 on November 21st so there are lots of ways to get on the record, so we just 21 want to make sure everyone's comfortable with that. With that, we will 22 start. I'll keep time. I'll call the two folks that are signed up and then once 23 4 those two have had an opportunity, I will call anyone else who hasn't 1 signed up, but would like an opportunity to comment. So we'll start with 2 Jan Cameron. 3 4 JAN CAMERON: Thank you. I'm Jan Cameron with ( unintelligible) 5 First of all, I'd like to thank you all for coming here, as I said to one of you 6 earlier it's nice that the EPA is recognizing that Amargosa Valley actually 7 sits here and might be impacted by Yucca Mountain. My comment 8 basically is I think that trying to set standards for a 10,000 year period is 9 pretty iffy under the best of circumstances with the best of scientists with 10 the best intentions. I think it's admirable to have some standards to try 11 and ( unintelligible) to try and set standards for a million years, I think 12 passes ridiculous and I would hope that any standard that the EPA does 13 set is ( unintelligible) because things will change so much ( unintelligible). 14 Thank you. 15 16 KEN GAREY: I'm Ken Garey from Amargosa Valley, I'm here 17 twenty five years or so. Welcome to Amargosa; I'm glad you could be 18 here because folks ( unintelligible) standard of expected or anticipated 19 increase in radiation from the Yucca Mountain project itself ( unintelligible) 20 described as 15 mR. In the roundtable discussion there was an upset that 21 15 mR was based on the national average of 350 mR annual exposure. 22 We here at Amargosa have been measured at 110 mR in our state, and 23 5 15 mR compared to 110mR is insignificant compared to the other risks we 1 accept or take. We've worked a number of years to establish the 2 background in this area, and when people worry ( unintelligible) parked in 3 all these ( unintelligible) stations, ( unintelligible) at our stations is measured 4 at 110 and it's consistent. ( unintelligible) I've been talking with Dr. Park 5 and he mentioned, does that exclude Radon? I didn't have an answer but 6 then I thought about it and it includes Radon. Radon is included because 7 when the increases and decreases ( unintelligible). Radon gas is naturally 8 occurring in the soil. ( unintelligible) They've added in the chest x rays and 9 so on and established 110 mR a year. I would say, living this close to the 10 test site, that is rather important. Although we have other stations, exactly 11 like the ones here, through Utah and down in New Mexico that their 12 readings of annual exposure rates are sometimes above ours and 13 sometimes below, depending on ( unintelligible). But I don't mean any point 14 other than this: we should use, measure and establish background 15 characterization in this community at 110 per year and that added to 15 16 mR. A good background ( unintelligible) site characterization 17 ( unintelligible). Thank you. 18 19 DOUG SARNO: Is there anyone else who would like to comment 20 at this time? I'll turn it back over to Elizabeth then. We can let these folks 21 go home. We will be here until 9: 00 pm in case there are other people in 22 the community who would like to come and comment. Certainly those of 23 6 you who are here are certainly free to depart. And again, I thank you for 1 your comments at the public meeting, and at the hearing and assure you 2 that we came here to listen and to reassure you that we are going to fully 3 consider all of the public comments that we receive during the public 4 comment period in formulating our final rule. Thank you. 5


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66366]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26505]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-8-000]

Notice of Application; Northwest Pipeline Company, LLC

    Take notice that on October 27, 2014, Northwest Pipeline Company,
LLC (Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, filed an
application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part
157 of the Commission's regulations to construct and operate its Kalama
Lateral Project (Project), located in Cowlitz County, Washington. The
proposed Project consists of the installation of approximately 3.1
miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline, metering facilities, and
miscellaneous appurtenances. The Project is designed to provide 320,000
dekatherms per day of natural gas to a proposed Methanol Plant located
within the north industrial area of the Port of Kalama, in Cowlitz
County, Washington, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Pam
Barnes, Project Manager-Business Development,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Teresa Silcox Torrey, Assistant
General Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All persons located at Northwest
Pipeline, LLC, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with he Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: November 24, 2014.

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26505 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P