<!DOCTYPE html
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

	<title>QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS | Pesticides | US EPA</title>
	<meta name="DC.description" content="pesticide, pesticides, EPA Acetochlor Registration Information - Questions and Answers" />
	<meta name="keywords" content="Office of Pesticide Programs, OPP, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, pesticide, acetochlor, ARP, maps, soils, ground water, surface water, monitoring, pesticides, registration, partnership" />

	<meta name="DC.title" content="QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS | Pesticides | US EPA" />
	<meta name="DC.subject" content="Office of Pesticide Programs, OPP, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, pesticide, acetochlor, ARP, maps, soils, ground water, surface water, monitoring, pesticides, registration, partnership" />
	<meta name="DC.type" content="" />

	<meta name="DC.date.modified" content="2007-08-21" />
	<meta name="DC.date.created" content="" />
	<meta name="DC.date.reviewed" content="" />

	<meta name="DC.language" content="en" />
	<meta name="DC.Creator" content="US EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs" />
	<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
	<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
	<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" />
	<link rel="meta" href="http://www.epa.gov/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels" />

	<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/s/print.css" />

Jump to main content.

Pesticides: Regulating Pesticides

	<form id="EPAsearch" method="get" action="http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch">

Recent Additions | Contact Us
			Search:
			<input type="hidden" name="fld" value="opp00001|regulating|antimicrobials|biopesticides|docket|factsheets|fees|fifra6a2|foia|foodfeed|international|pestlabels|registrationkit|reregistration|tolerance,
oppad001, oppbppd1|biopesticides,oppefed1|aceto|ecorisk_ders|studyprofile_templates, oppfead1|eds|harmonization|international|labeling, opphed01,opppmsd1,oppppls1,opprd001,oppsrrd1" />
			<input type="hidden" name="areaname" value="Pesticides: Regulating Pesticides" />
			<input type="hidden" name="areacontacts" value="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/contacts.htm" />

			<input type="hidden" name="areasearchurl" value="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm" />

			<input type="hidden" name="result_template" value="epafiles_default.xsl" />
 			<input type="hidden" name="filter" value="sample4filt.hts" />
			<input name="typeofsearch" id="EPAall" type="radio" value="epa"/>All EPA
			<input name="typeofsearch" id="Areaall" type="radio" value="area" checked="checked" />This Area
			<input name="querytext" id="searchbox" value="" />
		  <input name="submit" id="searchbutton" type="submit" value="Go" />

	</form>

You are here: EPA Home

Pesticides

Regulating Pesticides

Restricted & Canceled Uses

Acetochlor

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Conditional Registration Of Acetochlor

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Prevention, Pesticides And Toxic Substances (7506C)

March 11, 1994

On March 11, 1994, EPA conditionally registered the pesticide acetochlor.
The conditions of registration include stringent control of the use of this
pesticide, oversight efforts to ensure that its use does not cause unreasonable
risks to public health or the environment, and provisions to suspend or cancel
its use if the terms of the agreement are not met.  This document explains more
about this pesticide and how EPA reached its decision to register acetochlor.

What is acetochlor, who manufactures it, and what will it be used for?

Why has EPA decided to conditionally register acetochlor?

 Under what conditions will EPA cancel the registration for acetochlor?

 How will EPA ensure that the registrants of acetochlor fulfill these commitments?

What are the possible health effects of acetochlor, based on laboratory studies?

Given the use restrictions, what are the potential risks to agricultural workers and to consumers?  Are there dietary risks to children?

EPA first received an application to register acetochlor in 1983.  Why is the Agency making a registration decision now?

Is this registration decision consistent with the Administration's initiative to reduce the use and risk of pesticides?

What are the potential environmental risks of acetochlor?

How are these potential environmental risks being addressed?  Is the registration decision consistent with the Administration's efforts to protect ground water?

How does acetochlor compare in terms of relative risk to other corn herbicides?

Will EPA impose similar use restrictions on other corn herbicides?

What potential benefits does acetochlor offer?

What is acetochlor, who manufactures it, and what will it be used for?

EPA has approved the application of acetochlor by the Acetochlor Registration Partnership, consisting of Monsanto Co. and Zeneca which later sold their shares to Dow  AgroSciences.  Acetochlor is a selective herbicide for control of  annual grasses and  broadleaf weeds. It is marketed under the trade names of Harness (Monsanto) and Surpass,  TopNotch, and Trophy (Dow AgroSciences).

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

Why has EPA decided to conditionally register acetochlor?

The registration of acetochlor is expected to significantly reduce the total use of corn herbicides in the United States.   Acetochlor will substitute for many corn  herbicides of concern, including alachlor, metolachlor, atrazine, and 2,4-D.  Under this  decision, the Agency is implementing stringent standards for the registration of  pesticides and expects industry to demonstrate its willingness to implement measures to  meet these environmental standards.

EPA has imposed several restrictions and conditions on the use of acetochlor in order  to limit potential risks to human health and the environment.  These restrictions include  limiting its use to certified applicators, preventing aerial application, restricting the  types of soils on which acetochlor can be used, and prohibiting application to water.   Compliance with these limitations will ensure that public health and the environment is  adequately protected.

The registration also includes several early-warning measures to ensure that ground  water and surface water resources remain protected.  EPA is requiring the Partnership to  conduct several prospective ground water studies aimed at limiting the use of acetochlor  in areas where migration to ground water is likely. Furthermore, the Agency has included  a 10-year "sunset" provision in the registration decision. To ensure that  acetochlor continues to meet evolving health and environmental standards, the Partnership  has agreed to submit any additional data needed to support the continued registration of  acetochlor.  Failure to comply with this requirement will result in automatic  cancellation of the registration on March 7, 2004.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

Under what conditions will EPA cancel the registration for acetochlor?

EPA has established several criteria that may trigger the automatic cancellation of
acetochlor. The Partnership has agreed  that if the Agency decides to cancel the  registration of acetochlor based on these factors, this decision will be final.

Cancellation for Failure to Achieve Use Reduction Targets

If any of the following three use reduction goals are not met, the registration  	will be automatically canceled:

At the end of 18 months from the date of registration, a net  			cumulative reduction from 1992 levels, adjusted for planted acreage  			differences, of 4 million pounds of the herbicides alachlor, metolachlor,  		atrazine, EPTC, butylate, and 2,4-D used on corn.

At the end of 3 years from the date of registration, a net cumulative    		reduction from 1992 levels, adjusted for planted acreage differences, of 22.6  		million pounds of the herbicides alachlor, metolachlor, atrazine, EPTC,  		butylate, and 2,4-D used on corn.

At the end of 5 years from the date of registration, a net cumulative   		reduction from 1992 levels, adjusted for planted acreage differences, of 66.3
		million pounds of the herbicides alachlor, metolachlor, atrazine, EPTC, 		butylate, and 2,4-D used on corn.

Cancellation for Failure to Protect Ground Water

Three scenarios have been established for automatically canceling the  	registration for acetochlor based on ground water concerns.  The registration for  	acetochlor will be automatically canceled if any one of the following conditions is  	met:

If EPA determines that prospective ground water studies from 4 sites  		out of a total of 8 sites indicate a pattern of movement of acetochlor toward  		ground water from use in accordance with label directions or in accordance  		with widespread and commonly recognized practice.

If detections occur in ≥ 20 wells included in a State Monitoring  		Program at a concentration of ≥ 0.10 parts per billion (ppb) followed by 2    		subsequent detections at ≥ 0.10 ppb in monthly sampling of each of these   		wells, conducted over a 6-month period or if detections of acetochlor occur 		in ≥ 150 individual wells at a concentration of ≥ 0.20 ppb followed by 		two subsequent detections of ≥ 0.20 ppb in monthly sampling of those 		wells, conducted over a period of 6 months.

If detections of acetochlor occur in ≥ 20 wells at a concentration  		of ≥ 1.0 ppb, followed by two subsequent detections at ≥ 1.0 ppb in 		monthly sampling of those wells, conducted over a period of 6 months.

Cancellation for Failure to Protect Surface Water

Two scenarios have been established for automatically canceling the registration 	for acetochlor based on surface water concerns:

If a community water supply system that derives its water primarily  		from surface water detects an annual concentration of acetochlor of ≥ 2.0  		ppb, EPA may prohibit use of acetochlor in the related watershed.  As an  		alternative to cancellation, the Partnership could be required to upgrade the  		system.

If EPA determines that two large community water supply systems  		(systems serving over 100,000 people) or 10 community water supply systems of  		any size have an annual concentration of acetochlor of ≥ 2.0 ppb.

In addition, if any community water system detects a single peak concentration 	of ≥ 8.0 ppb of acetochlor, the Partnership will make biweekly sampling of 	that water system throughout the following 12 months to determine whether the 2.0  	ppb annual concentration has been exceeded.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

How will EPA ensure that the registrants of acetochlor fulfill these commitments?

EPA's registration of acetochlor includes several reporting mechanisms to ensure compliance with the conditions of use.  These provisions include:

annual reporting from an independent market research firm on the status of  	the reductions in use of selected corn herbicides;

quarterly status reports on the Partnership's negotiations with the states  	on developing ground water monitoring programs, followed by annual reporting  	beginning in February of 1995; and

notice to EPA within 15 days of a detection of acetochlor in ground water or  	surface water.

In addition, standard record keeping and inspection requirements are included in the registration notice.

Critical to the effectiveness of monitoring programs are effective methods for detecting residues of acetochlor.  The Partnership has agreed to submit to EPA a  validated method for detecting acetochlor and degradates (breakdown products) of concern  in water samples.  The methods will include analyte-specific methods, multi-residue  methods, and low-cost enzyme immunoassay methods.  The approved methods will be made  available to drinking water suppliers.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

What are the possible health effects of acetochlor based on
laboratory studies?

Based on laboratory studies submitted by the registrants and reviewed by EPA, the  Agency believes that acetochlor will not pose unreasonable risks to public health.  Although acetochlor has the potential to cause adverse effects, EPA  believes that actual  exposure will be low and that the resulting risks will not be of concern, as described in  Question 6.  Below is a summary of the findings of the acetochlor laboratory studies  submitted to the Agency:

Carcinogenicity

EPA has classified acetochlor as a probable human carcinogen (Group B2).  This 	classification is based on evidence of carcinogenicity from several sources.  	Laboratory animal tests found an increased incidence of cancer or tumors (benign or  	malignant) of the liver, thyroid, lung, uterus, ovaries, kidney, and nose.  (Not  	all of these effects were observed in each type or sex of laboratory animal 	tested.)  Certain tests also indicated that acetochlor is a mutagen, causing 	changes to cellular DNA.  Finally, positive carcinogenicity data have been found 	for chemically similar pesticides (alachlor and metolachlor).

Reproductive and Developmental Effects

Studies have indicated that acetochlor, in sufficiently high doses, can cause 	adverse reproductive and developmental effects in laboratory animals.  The main 	effects observed were decreased weight of parent and offspring.  Birth defects were  	not detected.

Other Effects Of Long-Term Exposure

Long-term studies of exposure (three months to one year) indicated that 	acetochlor could cause adverse effects to laboratory animals at sufficiently high  	doses.  The findings included decreased body weight, adverse effects to testes, and 	blood chemistry effects.

Short-term Risks Of Exposure (other than reproductive/developmental  	effects)

EPA has also reviewed a number of other studies on laboratory animals of the 	short-term or acute effects of acetochlor.  Generally, these studies have indicated  	that acetochlor, as well as the formulated products, Harness and Surpass, are of  	low to moderate toxicity if ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin.  	Harness has been found to be a strong eye irritant, although Surpass has not.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

Given the use restrictions, what are the potential risks to  agricultural workers and to consumers?  Are there dietary risks to children?

As is the case with many chemicals, EPA recognizes that overexposure to acetochlor has  the potential to pose significant risks to human health.  Prior to making a registration  decision, EPA made an extensive assessment of acetochlor's potential health risks,  including risks to sensitive subgroups, such as children. Based on scientific studies,  EPA has concluded that acetochlor will not pose unreasonable risks to health if it is  used in accordance with the label requirements.

In estimating dietary risks of cancer, EPA has taken a conservative approach in a  number of its assumptions to be protective of public health.  For example, EPA has  assumed that 100% of the corn crop will be treated with acetochlor and that residues will  be present at the tolerance levels, neither of which are likely to occur.  The resulting  estimate of the upper-bound or "worst-case" risk of cancer is approximately two  in one million.  This figure is slightly higher than the risk level generally regarded as  negligible, but EPA believes the risk is not unreasonable given the conservative risk  assumptions used.

For dietary risks other than cancer, EPA believes that acetochlor residues in food  will be significantly less than levels that would be of health concern.  EPA has taken  into account the diets of infants and children, which differ significantly from adults,  in making this determination.

Agricultural workers could be exposed to acetochlor primarily via the dermal route.  Assuming that the maximum application rate is used, and that workers wear long pants,  long sleeve shirts, and chemical resistant gloves (as required by the label), EPA's  estimate of the worst-case additional cancer risk ranges from about two to 40 in one  million (1.6 x 10-6 to 4.2 x 10-5).  This risk is comparable to the  risks to workers posed by other pesticides and EPA believes that it is not unreasonable.

EPA believes that the measures described previously to prevent acetochlor from reaching ground and surface water supplies, including the automatic cancellation provisions, will ensure that there will not be a significant health risk from acetochlor  residues in drinking water.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

EPA first received an application to register acetochlor in 1983.   Why is the Agency making a registration decision now?

Before EPA can register a pesticide, the Agency must determine that the use of the  pesticide will not cause any unreasonable adverse effect on human health or the  environment.  Although Monsanto submitted its original application for registration in  September 1983 (and Zeneca in July 1991), not until November 1992 did the Agency receive  all the information needed to complete its review of the potential health and  environmental risks posed by acetochlor.

Based on this information and the subsequent negotiations conducted between EPA and  the Partnership, EPA has now determined, based on the agreed upon conditions of the  registration, that the controlled use of acetochlor will not cause any unreasonable  adverse effect on the environment and that use of acetochlor is in the public interest.

These restrictions are comparably stringent to those in the Food Quality Protection  Act (FQPA).  Although acetochlor has been classified as a probable human carcinogen, the  level of exposure determines the magnitude of the risk. EPA believes that the potential  for exposure in food and to applicators is low. Therefore, under the conditions of the  registration, acetochlor meets the Agency's proposed "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard for human health.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

Is this registration decision consistent with the Administration's  initiative to reduce the use and risk of pesticides?

Acetochlor will be a new tool for managing a variety of difficult-to-control weed  species and weeds resistant to currently-registered herbicides. Use of this new corn  herbicide will decrease the total pounds needed to control a variety of weeds and will  help reduce our reliance on pesticides in the United States. The registration also  includes unprecedented early detection measures to prevent ground water emergencies,  including the most protective early-warning system ever included in a pesticide  registration.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

What are the potential environmental risks of acetochlor?

Before EPA registers a pesticide, the Agency requires the applicants to submit studies  of the pesticide's potential fate in the environment and the effects it may cause, just  as health effects studies are required.  This answer summarizes the findings of those  studies for acetochlor.  The measures EPA is taking to prevent the potential adverse  effects from occurring are described in the answer to Question 10.

Environmental Fate

Studies indicate that acetochlor and its degradates are moderately persistent 	and moderately to very mobile in soil, depending on the characteristics of the soil  	where it is applied.  As a result, there is a relatively high potential for  	acetochlor residues to reach ground and surface water.  Acetochlor does not appear  	to pose a significant risk of concentrating through the food chain.

Ecological Effects

Studies, that EPA has reviewed, indicate that acetochlor is slightly toxic to 	mammals and birds.  Because acetochlor will be applied only once per season and  	because of its relatively low persistence on food items, minimal chronic effects to  	birds and mammals are anticipated.  Available data indicate that acetochlor is  	practically nontoxic to insects, moderately toxic to aquatic invertebrates, and  	highly toxic to fish.  Acetochlor is also highly toxic to certain aquatic and  	terrestrial plants.

These fate and toxicity characteristics indicate that acetochlor poses potential 	risks to aquatic plants and animals and to terrestrial plants in wet areas, 	including endangered species that inhabit those areas.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

How are these potential environmental risks being addressed?  Is the  registration decision consistent with the Administration's efforts to protect ground water?

EPA is requiring the Partnership to meet a number of conditions in order to address  any potential environmental risks. To ensure the protection of ground water resources,  the Partnership has agreed to conduct prospective ground water studies in 8 locations  representing the full range of soil textures consistent with the acetochlor label. The  results from these studies will be used to further limit, if necessary, the areas where  acetochlor may be used. If leaching from agricultural use occurs in half of the studies,  the use of acetochlor will be canceled. In addition, the Partnership will monitor 25  wells in each of seven states (Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska,  and Kansas) and at 175 surface water monitoring locations in the same area, representing  over 80 percent of the expected use of acetochlor.  These innovative approaches to ground  and surface water protection will provide several early-warning mechanisms to assure the  protection of these vital resources.

The Partnership has also agreed to investigate the locations of endangered plants,  fish, and aquatic invertebrates in certain corn-growing areas and to take mitigation  actions in areas where endangered species are identified.  EPA believes that these  measures will ensure that acetochlor does not pose unreasonable risks to the environment,  including endangered species.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

How does acetochlor compare in terms of relative risk to other corn  herbicides?

Compared with a major alternative, alachlor,  acetochlor is equally or less toxic to  both humans and the environment. Monsanto Agricultural Company, a member of the Partnership, also holds the registration for alachlor. EPA believes that Monsanto will  use its marketing abilities to shift a large portion of the alachlor market to acetochlor.

A second major alternative, atrazine, is a possible human carcinogen.  Through the use  limitations imposed in this registration, acetochlor will also be relatively less toxic  for this use pattern.  Under the mandated use restrictions, acetochlor is also relatively  less toxic than other herbicides of toxicological concern, including metolachlor and
2,4-D.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

Will EPA impose similar use restrictions on other corn herbicides?

EPA is making available to growers a new tool for weed control management.  This agreement establishes a model for registering corn herbicides that have health and  environmental characteristics similar to acetochlor.  Restrictions on other corn  herbicides will be dependent on the results of all health and ecological effects testing,  the potential to leach to ground water, the possibility of harming surface water, and any  threats to endangered species.

As the Agency evaluates corn herbicides in its reregistration process, EPA will consider the restrictions placed on acetochlor in determining the eligibility for  reregistration of toxicologically similar active ingredients.  Corn herbicides with  properties similar to acetochlor may be subject to identical use limitations, ground and  surface water monitoring programs, and endangered species protection requirements in  order to meet the standard for reregistration.

You may continue reading the Questions and Answers in order or return to the
list to select another question.

What potential benefits does acetochlor offer?

EPA has identified several benefits to the public from the use of acetochlor:

Acetochlor will be a direct competitor with established pre-plant grassy  	weed control chemicals.

It has a broader spectrum of activity and is applied at lower rates of  	application than the available alternatives.

Acetochlor is likely to reduce the total pounds of herbicides applied to  	corn by substituting primarily for alachlor and metolachlor.  Some reduction in the  	use of atrazine is also likely.

This concludes the Questions and Answers section.  You may return to the
list to select another question.

Publications | Glossary | A-Z
    Index | Jobs

Local Navigation

Pesticides Home

Regulating Pesticides Home

Registration

Reevaulation: Pesticide Review

Pesticide-Producing Establishments

Laws and Regulations

International Issues

Adverse Effects Reporting

Storage & Disposal

Restricted & Canceled  Uses

Pesticide Tolerances

Registration Information Sources

EPA Home

Privacy and Security Notice

Contact Us

Jump to main content.


[Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20645-20646]
[DOCID:fr20ap10-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 61906; File No. 3-13860]

Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section
15E(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Notice of
Hearing; In the Matter of the Application of Dagong Global Credit
Rating Co., Ltd.

April 14, 2010.
    Dagong Global Credit Rating Co., Ltd. (``Dagong''), a credit rating
agency based in Beijing, China, submitted an application with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') for registration as
a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (``NRSRO'')
pursuant to section 15E(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') and Rule 17g-1 thereunder.

    Pursuant to section 15E(a)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, not later
than 90 days (or within such longer period as to which the applicant
consents) after the application for registration is furnished to the
Commission, the Commission shall, by order, either grant such
registration or institute proceedings to determine whether such
registration should be denied. Under section 15E(a)(2)(C), the
Commission shall grant registration as an NRSRO to an applicant if the
Commission finds that the requirements of Section 15E of the Exchange
Act are satisfied and unless the Commission finds (in which case the
Commission shall deny such registration) that, among other things, if
the applicant were so registered, its registration would be subject to
suspension or revocation under section 15E(d) of the Exchange Act.
    If the Commission institutes proceedings to determine whether an
application for registration should be denied, section
15E(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Exchange Act requires that the Commission
shall include notice of the grounds for denial under consideration and
an opportunity for a hearing. Section 15E(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) provides that
the proceedings shall be concluded not later than 120 days after the
date on which the application for registration is furnished to the
Commission. The Commission may extend the time for conclusion of such
proceedings, pursuant to section 15E(a)(2)(B)(iii), for not longer than
90 days, if it finds good cause for such extension and publishes its
reasons for such finding, or for such longer period as to which the
applicant consents. Section 15E(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides that, at the
conclusion of such proceedings, the Commission, by order, shall grant
the application or deny the application for registration.
    After furnishing its application on December 24, 2009, Dagong
consented to two extensions of time for the Commission to act on the
application. The first extension was for seven days and the second
extension was fourteen additional days. Under Section 15E(a)(2)(B), the
Commission is required to act on the application no later than April
14, 2010, unless further extensions are granted by Dagong.
    Dagong has provided the following information in connection with
its application to register as an NRSRO. Dagong is located in Beijing,
China. Dagong has no physical presence in the United States, does not
rate any U.S. companies, and has no U.S. persons subscribing to its
ratings. When submitting certifications from companies that rely on its
ratings for investment purposes, as required for registration, Dagong
relied exclusively on companies located in China.
    In addition, to date the Commission has been unable to determine
whether, under local law requirements applicable to Dagong, Dagong
would be able to comply with the provisions in Section 17 of the
Exchange Act, and the rules thereunder, relating to making its books
and records available for Commission examination, producing books and
records to the Commission, and furnishing reports to the Commission.
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 15E(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Exchange
Act, the Commission is instituting proceedings to determine whether
Dagong's application for registration as a nationally recognized
statistical rating organization should be denied. In these proceedings,
grounds for denial under consideration will include:

    (I) Whether Dagong has a sufficient connection with U.S.
interstate commerce to register as an NRSRO, and thereby invoke the
regulatory and oversight authority of the Commission; and
    (II) Whether Dagong's application for registration should be
denied pursuant to Section 15E(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) on the grounds that,
if registered as an NRSRO, Dagong would be subject to having its
registration suspended or revoked under section 15E(d)(1) of the
Exchange Act because, in light of requirements in its home
jurisdiction, Dagong would be unable to comply with provisions of
the U.S. securities laws and rules (an act identified in Section
15(b)(4)(D) of the Exchange Act), including, in particular, Section
17 of the Exchange Act and Rules 17g-2 and 17g-3 thereunder.

    Given the nature of the issues raised in the application, the
Commission is currently of the view that a hearing on the basis of
written submissions will sufficiently allow the parties to address
these issues.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, that proceedings under section
15E(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act be and hereby are instituted to
determine whether the application of Dagong should be denied.
    It is further ordered that a hearing shall be conducted on the
basis of written submissions (and in accordance with the Commission's
Rules of Practice, 17 CFR 201.100, et seq., except as otherwise
provided) addressing issues of law or fact in dispute and legal
arguments supporting the parties' positions. Dagong and the interested
divisions or offices of the Commission shall each file an opening
submission not later than May 5, 2010 and a responsive submission not
later than May 17, 2010. Each party shall simultaneously serve
according to the Rules of Practice on the other party a copy of each
submission. Any requests for extensions of time (which shall be made
pursuant to Rule of Practice 161), and any requests to submit oral
testimony shall be considered contingent upon Dagong's consent to a
reasonable extension of time pursuant to section 15E(a)(2)(B)(iii) of
the Exchange Act in addition to the 90-day extension the Commission is
hereby ordering as set forth below.
    It is further ordered that the time period for the conclusion of
all proceedings, after which the Commission is required to grant or
deny the application, is extended for an additional 90 days pursuant to
section 15E(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Exchange Act to July 22, 2010. The
Commission finds good cause for this 90-day extension on the basis that
the application raises substantial legal questions, including questions
of foreign law, which necessitate granting the parties sufficient time
to prepare written submissions and the Commission sufficient time to
consider those submissions.
    It is further ordered that any person who seeks to participate on a
limited basis, or amicus curiae, pursuant to Rules of Practice 210(c)
and (d), shall file a motion for leave to participate, together with
the proposed submission, with the Secretary of the Commission not later
than May 5, 2010.
    It is further ordered that the Secretary of the Commission shall
serve this Order forthwith upon Dagong in accordance with Rule of
Practice 141; and that notice to all other persons shall be given by
publication of this Order and Notice in the Federal Register; and that
this Order and Notice and any subsequent orders granting or denying the
application shall be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov and published in the SEC Docket.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9052 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78958-78959]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27940]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0969; FRL-10517-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the
Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in Center for
Biological Diversity, et al. v. Regan, No. 3:22-cv-00052-WHO (N.D.
Cal.). On January 5, 2022, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity
and Center for Environmental Health filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April
22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs alleged
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) failed to
perform certain non-discretionary duties in accordance with the Act to
timely determine the attainment status of certain areas with respect to
the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to sign
notices of final rulemaking.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by January 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2022-0969, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information

on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information about
Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Pettit, Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0969) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree, and is available
through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then
select ``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to
take action pursuant to CAA section 110(k) on certain state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions by the State of California and
the State of Texas. First, on September 23, 2021, the State of
California failed to make a SIP submission for the San Diego County
area for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) measures not
tied to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The proposed consent
decree would require EPA to sign a notice issuing a finding of failure
to submit for this SIP submission no later than April 30, 2023.
    Second, on November 13, 2020, EPA determined that submittals for
the Dallas-Fort Worth area containing the SIP elements required for the
``Serious'' nonattainment classification with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS were administratively complete. Thus, EPA had a duty to take
final action to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve or
disapprove, in whole or in part, the SIP submittals by November 13,
2021. On September 16, 2022, and October 3, 2022, EPA approved Texas'
SIP revisions for the emissions inventory and nonattainment new source
review elements. (87 FR 56891; 87 FR 59697). The proposed consent
decree would require EPA to sign a notice of final rulemaking on the
remaining SIP elements by September 30, 2023.
    Third, on February 22, 2019, EPA determined that submittal for the
Eastern Kern area containing the SIP element, Rule 425.3, Portland
cement kilns, was administratively complete. Thus, EPA had a duty to
take final action to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve or
disapprove, in whole or in part, the SIP submittal by February 22,
2020. The proposed consent decree would require EPA to sign a notice of
final rulemaking on the remaining SIP element by June 30, 2023.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information about Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-
0969, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-27940 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 80762]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32570]

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

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: RP16-313-000.
    Applicants: MMGS Inc.,Mitsui & Co. Cameron LNG Sales, Inc.
    Description: Petition for Temporary Waivers of Capacity Release
Regulations and Related Pipeline Tariff Provisions of MMGS, Inc., et.
al. under RP16-313.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-137-002.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance Filing for
Rate Case to be effective 12/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20151221-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-54-001.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: AVC ADIT PLR Compliance
Filing to be effective 12/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20151221-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16.

    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 Sec.  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: December 21, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32570 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 13373]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-234-000]

Southwest Gas Storage Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

March 7, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2006, Southwest Gas Storage
Company (Southwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 5, to become
effective April 1, 2006. Southwest states that the purpose of this
filing is to update the fuel reimbursement percentages proposed to be
effective April 1, 2006.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3645 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 54641-54643]
[DOCID:fr18se06-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

September 8, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC06-157-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Aquila, Inc and Westar Energy, Inc submit an
Application for Approval of Disposition of Assets and Exhibits.
    Filed Date: August 31, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060907-0155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-158-000.
    Applicants: Hawks Nest Hydro LLC; Alloy Power L.L.C.
    Description: Alloy Power LLC and Hawks Nest Hydro LLC submit an
application for authorization for disposition of jurisdictional
facilities.
    Filed Date: August 31, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-159-000.
    Applicants: Avista Rathdrum, LLC; Cogentrix of Rathdrum, Inc.;
Rathdrum Power, LLC.
    Description: Avista Rathdrum, LLC, et al. submit their application
for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities and
request for expedited action.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060907-0049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings
    Docket Numbers: ER99-830-017.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc.
    Description: Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc submits an errata to
amend the July 24, 2006 notice to include Merrill Lynch Capital
Services Inc.
    Filed Date: August 30, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2559-007; ER01-1071-009; ER02-2018-008; ER05-
222-004; ER00-2391-008; ER98-2494-012; ER06-9-004; ER05-487-005; ER05-
1281-004; ER03-34-008; ER02-1903-007; ER99-2917-009; ER06-1261-002;
ER03-1104-005; ER03-1105-005; ER03-1332-004; ER06-1392-001; ER03-1333-
005; ER03-1103-004; ER01-838-008; ER03-1025-004; ER01-1972-008; ER98-
2076-012; ER03-155-007; ER98-4222-008; ER04-290-003; ER01-1710-010;
ER04-187-005; ER02-2166-007; ER04-947-006; ER01-2139-011; ER03-1375-
004.
    Applicants: Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC; Badger Windpower, LLC;
Blythe Energy, LLC; Diablo Winds, LLC; Doswell Limited Partnership; ESI
Vansycle Partners, L.P.; FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, LLC; FPL
Energy Cowboy Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC; FPL Energy
Hancock County Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P.; FPL Energy MH
50, LP; FPL Energy Mower County, LLC; FPL Energy North Dakota Wind,
LLC; FPL Energy North Dakota Wind II, LLC; FPL Energy Oklahoma Wind,
LLC; FPL Energy

Oliver Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Sooner Wind, LLC; FPL Energy South Dakota
Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Vansycle, L.L.C.; FPL Energy Wyoming, LLC; Gray
County Wind Energy, LLC; Hawkeye Power Partners, LLC; High Winds, LLC;
Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC; Meyersdale Windpower LLC; Mill Run
Windpower, LLC; North Jersey Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership;
Pennsylvania Windfarms, Inc.; POSDEF Power Company, L.P.; Somerset
Windpower, LLC; Waymart Wind Farm, L.P.
    Description: FPLE Companies submits Joint Triennial Market Power
Update.
    Filed Date: August 28, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1047-003; ER06-451-008.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc on behalf Southwestern Public
Service Company submits First Revised Sheet 8 et al. to FERC Electric
Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective November 1, 2006.
    Filed Date: August 31, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1432-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Description: Commonwealth Edison Company submits Interconnection
Agreement and Construction Agreement with the City of Batavia and PJM
Interconnection, LLC.
    Filed Date: August 30, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1446-000.
    Applicants: Hawks Nest Hydro LLC.
    Description: Hawks Nest Hydro LLC submits Application for Market-
based Authorization, Certain Waivers and Blanket Authorizations and
Request for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: August 31, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1448-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: The New England Power Pool Participants Committee
submits the counterpart signature pages of the New England Power Pool
Agreement dated as of September 1, 1971 as amended and executed by the
entities.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1449-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits Notice of
Cancellation of Service Agreements 33 et al. to its FERC Electric
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 5.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1450-000.
    Applicants: WPS Resources Operating Companies.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corp and Upper Peninsula
Power Co submit a notice of cancellation and revised service agreement
cover sheet.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1451-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submits its Service
Agreement 920, OATT of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1452-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits an executed Wholesale
Market Participation Agreement among PJM, Granger Energy of Honeybrook
LLC, and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1453-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a Wholesale Market
Participation Agreement among PJM, Ocean Energy Corporation, and Jersey
Central Power & Light a FirstEnergy Company.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1454-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits its Second Revised Sheets 1
and 4 of its First Revised Rate Schedule 233, an Electric Power Supply
Agreement with the City of Robinson, Kansas.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1462-000.
    Applicants: Aquila Inc.
    Description: Aquila, Inc submits its Power Purchase Agreement,
Service Agreement No. 1, with Mid-Kansas Electric Company LLC.
    Filed Date: August 31, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1463-000.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: The Empire District Electric Co submits its First
Revised Sheet 4c-10 et al. to its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume
No 1.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1464-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.; New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: ISO New England et al. submit their proposed market
rule changes to re-instate Appendix H to Market Rule 1.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1465-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc et al submits filing implementing
the Transition Provisions of the Forward Capacity Market Settlement
Agreement filed on March 6, 2006.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060907-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1466-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: The New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits
proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff and its
Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060907-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1467-000; ER06-451-009.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc proposes to revise portions
of its

Open Access Transmission Tariff relating to its real-time energy
imbalance service market.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060907-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1468-000.
    Applicants: Pacificorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits its load ratio share figures for
August 1, 2006--July 31, 2007.
    Filed Date: September 1, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060907-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15372 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 27685]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-80]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American
Aerospace Technologies, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before July 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0864
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 7, 2019.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0864.
    Petitioner: American Aerospace Technologies, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.113(a) & (b);
61.133(a); 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.103(b)(1); 91.119(c); 91.121;
91.151; 91.203(a) & (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2);
91.417(a) & (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted,
would allow the commercial operation of the HX8 XXL octocopter unmanned
aircraft system, manufactured by Harris Aerial, weighing not more than
150 pounds for the purpose of conducting critical infrastructure
operations during routine operations and in emergency support
operations in conjunction with emergency first responders. Routine
operations include asset inspection and mapping, construction support,
and custom sensor deployment. Emergency operations include locating and
sensing outages and disaster recovery support. The pilot in command
will hold, at minimum, a part 107 Operator's Certificate, a Private
Pilot Knowledge Test Certificate, a Third-Class Medical Certificate,
and will have completed the Private Pilot Ground School.

[FR Doc. 2019-12444 Filed 6-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P