[Federal Register: October 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 204)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61388-61389]
[DOCID:fr24oc05-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA-7897]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If FEMA receives
documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in
this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be
provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled
suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of
the following tables.

ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was
suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional
Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael M. Grimm, Mitigation Division,
500 C Street, SW., Room 412, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities will
be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community.
However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits
flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory
requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no
longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes
place.

Regulatory Classification

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not involve any collection of information for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended as
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Effective date                              Date certain
                                                      authorization/                                Federal
        State and location          Community    cancellation of sale of   Current  effective    assistance no
                                       No.          flood insurance in          map date        longer available
                                                        community                                   in SFHAs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region IV:
    Tennessee: McNairy County,          470127  June 16, 1986, Emerg;      10/19/2005........  10/19/2005
     Unincorporated Areas.                       July 1, 1988, Reg;
                                                 October 19, 2005, Susp.
Region VII:
    Missouri: Alton, City of,           290490  May 1, 1975, Emerg;        ......do..........   Do.
     Oregon County.                              August 4, 1987, Reg;
                                                 October 19, 2005, Susp.
    Thayer, City of, Oregon             290267  June 5, 1975, Emerg;       ......do..........   Do.
     County.                                     January 1, 1987, Reg;
                                                 October 19, 2005, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* do=Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.-Emergency; Reg.-Regular; Susp.-Suspension.

    Dated: October 12, 2005.
David I. Maurstad,
Acting Mitigation Division Director, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate.
[FR Doc. 05-21138 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37664-37669]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15336]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 233

[Docket No. FRA-2012-0104, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC44

Signal Systems Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this final rule as part of a paperwork
reduction initiative. The final rule eliminates the regulatory
requirement that each railroad carrier file a signal system status
report with FRA every five years. FRA believes the report is no longer
necessary because FRA receives more updated information regarding
railroad signal systems through alternative sources. Separately, FRA is
amending the criminal penalty provision in the Signal Systems Reporting
Requirements by updating two outdated statutory citations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 2, 2014. Petitions for
reconsideration must be received by August 21, 2014. Comments in
response to petitions for reconsideration must be received by October
6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration and comments on petitions for
reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration or comments on
petitions for reconsideration related to this Docket No. FRA-2012-0104,
Notice No. 2 may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.Regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building, Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking.
    Please note that all petitions for reconsideration of this final
rule and comments on the petitions that are received will be posted
without change to www.Regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the discussion under the Privacy Act
heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.Regulations.gov at any time or visit the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Crain, Electronic Engineer,
Signal and Train Control Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, W35-
226, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493-6257<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephen N. Gordon, Trial Attorney,
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, W31-209, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Explanation of Regulatory Action

A. Elimination of the Signal System Five-[Y]ear Report

    On May 14, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13610--Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens, which seeks ``to
modernize our regulatory system and to reduce unjustified regulatory
burdens and costs.'' See 77 FR 28469. The E.O. directs each executive
agency to conduct retrospective reviews of its regulatory requirements
to identify potentially beneficial modifications to regulations.
Executive agencies are to ``give priority, consistent with the law, to
those initiatives that will produce significant quantifiable monetary
savings or significant quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens
while protecting public health, welfare, safety and our environment.''
See id. at 28470.
    FRA initiated a review of its existing regulations in accordance
with E.O. 13610 and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq., with the goal of identifying regulations that can be amended
or eliminated, thereby reducing the paperwork and reporting burden on
railroad carriers (railroads) that are subject to FRA jurisdiction. One
area where FRA believes it can help reduce the railroad industry's
reporting burden is by eliminating the requirement to file a ``Signal
System Five-Year Report.'' 49 CFR 233.9 (Sec.  233.9). Accordingly, FRA
proposed to do so in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published
June 19, 2013. See 78 FR 36738.
    Having considered the public comments on the NPRM, FRA is issuing
this final rule, which eliminates the requirement in Sec.  233.9 that
each carrier subject to the Signal Systems Reporting Requirements at 49
CFR part 233 (part 233) complete and submit a ``Signal System Five-Year
Report'' (Form FRA F6180.47) in accordance with the instructions and
definitions on the form. Part 233 applies to railroads that operate on
standard gage track that is part of the general railroad system of
transportation, except for rail rapid transit operations conducted over
track that is used exclusively for that purpose and that is not part of
the general railroad system of transportation. See 49 CFR 233.3,
Application; see also 49 CFR part 209, app. A, and part 211, app. A,
for discussions of the term ``general railroad system of
transportation[.]''
    The information reported on FRA Form F6180.47 is intended to update
FRA on the status of the railroad's signal system. It provides a
snapshot of each reporting railroad's signal system every five years,
and FRA has historically used the report as a source to monitor changes
to signal systems among the Nation's railroads. In particular, the
report provides information such as the total road and track mileage
for each method of train operation on the reporting railroad (i.e.,
traffic control, automatic block, timetable and train orders, and non-
automatic block) and the total number of interlockings, controlled
points, and switch arrangements maintained by the reporting railroad.
The report also provides information on the total road and track
mileage and the total number of locomotives and motor cars (including
multiple unit cars) with automatic train stop, train control, and cab
signal systems on the line of the reporting railroad, including foreign
locomotives and ``motor cars'' that operate over these installations.
    Prior to April 1, 1997, carriers were required to submit a ``Signal
System Annual Report'' by April 15 of each year. However, based on a
regulatory review, FRA extended the reporting requirement to every five
years rather than annually. See 61 FR 33871 (July 1, 1996). FRA
determined that a five-year reporting period would significantly

 reduce the reporting burden on the railroads while still meeting the
informational needs of the government. Therefore, in July 1996, FRA
amended Sec.  233.9 to require that ``[n]ot later than April 1, 1997
and every 5 years thereafter, each carrier shall file with FRA a signal
system status report `Signal System Five-[Y]ear Report' on a form to be
provided by FRA in accordance with instructions and definitions
provided on the report.''
    For the 2012 reporting period, FRA transitioned the ``Signal System
Five-Year Report'' form into an electronic format. The electronic form
required all of the same information as the paper form but could be
submitted via the Internet. The form was due to be submitted by no
later than April 1, 2012, and pertained to signal systems in service on
or after January 1, 2012. The next five-year report is not due until
April 2017. The present rulemaking eliminates the reporting requirement
in its entirety for April 2017 and thereafter.
    FRA is eliminating the requirement to file a ``Signal System Five-
Year Report'' because the report is no longer necessary. The data
collected in the ``Signal System Five-Year Report'' quickly becomes
outdated. Railroads normally modify signal systems far more frequently
than once every five years. Indeed, FRA has generally found that signal
system modifications occur with such frequency under 49 CFR 235.5 and
235.7, that the ``Signal System Five-Year Report'' often is out-of-date
by the time it is received by FRA.
    Moreover, FRA has other viable means to monitor a carrier's signal
system. It is better able to monitor the status of a railroad signal
system through the use of more frequently collected agency data--such
as the Block Signal Application (BSAP), see 49 CFR 235.5, and positive
train control (PTC) filings, see 49 CFR part 236, subparts H and I--
which provide the agency much more detailed and useful information. The
development and expansion of electronic reporting methods also allow
railroads to more frequently report to FRA information similar to that
which is captured in the ``Signal System Five-Year Report.'' This
ability gives FRA a better ``real-time'' understanding of a carrier's
signal system than the agency can get from a report that is filed once
every five years. As a result, FRA currently relies on the more up-to-
date sources for signal system data and has little use for the
information collected in the ``Signal System Five-Year Report.''
    Finally, the railroad industry and the general public do not appear
to derive any useful benefit or information from the requirement to
submit a ``Signal System Five-Year Report.'' The responses FRA has
received from the industry and the general public indicate that, as
expected, the data contained in the report does not provide up-to-date
information about railroad signal systems. As a result, FRA is
confident that eliminating the report will not result in the railroad
industry's or the general public's being less informed about railroad
signal systems.

B. Updating Statutory Citations in Part 233

    Administrative amendments are sometimes necessary to address
citations that have become outdated due to the actions of Congress.
This is particularly true when the statutory authority for a regulatory
provision is moved to a different title, chapter, or section of the
U.S. Code or if the statutory authority is redesignated as an entire
section of the U.S. Code instead of just a subsection of the U.S. Code.
Federal regulations do not ``auto-correct'' for these types of changes.
Therefore, it is incumbent on agencies to monitor their regulations and
make appropriate changes whenever feasible. FRA has identified two
citations in 49 CFR 233.13(b)--referencing ``section 209(e) of the
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as amended (49 U.S.C. 438(e))''
and ``49 U.S.C. 522(a)''--that should be amended for this reason, and
is making those amendments in this rulemaking.
    The first of the subject statutory citations is to a section of the
former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA), as amended. See
Public Law 91-458 (October 16, 1970). Section 209 of the FRSA, as
originally enacted, contained a civil penalty provision that was
codified at 45 U.S.C. 438. Although the statute did not contain a
criminal penalty provision when it was first enacted, Congress
eventually determined that there may be situations where criminal
penalties are warranted for violations of the law. Accordingly, the
FRSA was amended on October 10, 1980. See Public Law 96-423. Among
other things, the 1980 amendment added subsection (e) to section 209 of
the FRSA, establishing that criminal penalties may be assessed against
any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false entry in a record
or report required to be made or preserved under the FRSA; destroys,
mutilates, changes, or otherwise falsifies such a record or report;
fails to enter required specified facts or transactions in such a
record or report; makes, prepares, or preserves such a record or report
in violation of a regulation or order issued under the FRSA; or files a
false record or report with the Secretary of Transportation. This
revision to the FRSA was codified at 45 U.S.C. 438(e).
    In 1984, FRA amended its signal and train control regulations,
including 49 CFR part 233. See 49 FR 3374 (Jan. 26, 1984). Section
233.13(b) was amended at this time to read ``[w]hoever knowingly and
willfully--[f]iles a false report or other document required to be
filed by this part is subject to a $5,000 fine and 2 years imprisonment
as prescribed by 49 U.S.C. 522(a) and section 209(e) of the Federal
Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as amended (45 U.S.C. 438(e)).'' (Emphasis
added.) The italicized language reflected the added statutory authority
to impose certain criminal penalties that Congress provided in its 1980
amendment to the FRSA, which applied because FRSA was part of the
statutory basis for the requirements in part 233. See 49 FR 3378-79.
Subsequently, Congress made additional changes that applied to section
209(e) of the FRSA. In 1994, Congress enacted a law to ``revise,
codify, and enact without substantive change certain general and
permanent laws, related to transportation'' under title 49 of the U.S.
Code. See Public Law 103-272 and H.R. Rep. 103-180. As a result, the
general and permanent Federal railroad safety laws were repealed, and
their provisions were revised without substantive change, enacted, and
moved from title 45 (generally) to title 49. This 1994 law, commonly
referred to as ``recodification,'' included the FRSA as a whole, which
was recodified primarily in 49 U.S.C. chapter 201-213, including the
criminal penalty provision at section 209(e) (45 U.S.C. 438(e)), which
was recodified at 49 U.S.C. 21311. Recodification rendered this
statutory citation in 49 CFR 233.13(b) outdated, and FRA had not sought
to amend the regulatory provision prior to the NPRM in this rulemaking.
Given that FRA has begun the present rulemaking addressing part 233,
the agency views now as an appropriate time to update this citation in
paragraph (b) of Sec.  233.13.
    The second of the statutory citations being updated is ``49 U.S.C.
522(a),'' which provides an additional statutory authority for criminal
penalties for violations of Sec.  233.9. Before the enactment of the
FRSA in 1970, part 233 had been issued pursuant to section 25(h) of the
Interstate Commerce Act (then codified at 49 U.S.C. 26(h)), the Signal
Inspection Act of 1937, commonly referred to as the Signal

Inspection Act,\1\ as well as other statutory provisions.\2\ In
particular, criminal penalties for violations of reporting requirements
established by part 233 were available under the predecessor of 49
U.S.C. 522,\3\ which reads as follows: ``A person required to make a
report to the Secretary of Transportation . . . under section 504 of
this title about transportation by rail carrier, that knowingly and
willfully (1) makes a false entry in the report . . . or (5) files a
false report . . . with the Secretary, shall be fined not more than
$5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.'' In turn, 49
U.S.C. 504 authorizes the Secretary to require periodic reports from
rail carriers containing answers to questions asked by the Secretary,
and is part of the statutory authority for part 233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Signal Inspection Act of 1937 was repealed in the 1994
recodification of the rail safety laws, and its provisions were
revised and reenacted without substantive change, codified at 49
U.S.C. chapters 205 and 213. Public Law 103-272.
    \2\ See final rule amendments to 49 CFR part 233 at 37 FR 7096-
97 (Apr. 8, 1972) citing the following: ``AUTHORITY: The provisions
of this Part 233 issued under secs. 12, 20, 24 Stat. 383, 386, as
amended, sec. 441, 41 Stat. 498, as amended, secs. 6(e), (f), 80
Stat. 937, 49 U.S.C. 12, 20, 26, 1655.''
    \3\ Section 522 of title 49, U.S. Code was previously codified
at 49 U.S.C. 1655(f)(2) (section 6(f)(2) of the former Department of
Transportation Act, Public Law 89-670 (Oct. 15, 1966)), which gave
the same administrative powers exercised by the Interstate Commerce
Commission under certain sections of title 49 to carry out duties
transferred to the Secretary of Transportation by 49 U.S.C. 1655(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998, Public Law 105-178, sec. 4015(c), 112 Stat. 412, struck
the designation ``(a)'' for the first subsection of 49 U.S.C. 522 and
struck former subsection (b) in its entirety. Accordingly, the current
citation for the provision cited as ``49 U.S.C. 522(a)'' in paragraph
(b) of Sec.  233.13 is being corrected to read as ``49 U.S.C. 522''
instead.
    FRA identified the need for this update to the citation to ``49
U.S.C. 522(a)'' after the NPRM in this rulemaking was issued and is
incorporating this change to Sec.  233.13(b) in this final rule. For
clarity FRA is also updating the authority citation for part 233 by
adding explicit citations to 49 U.S.C. 504 and 522. FRA is proceeding
to a final rule without providing an NPRM or an opportunity for public
comment on this aspect of the final rule. Public comment is unnecessary
because, in making this revision, FRA is not exercising discretion in a
way that could be informed by public comment. Therefore notice and
comment procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest'' within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure
Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

C. Responses to Public Comments

    FRA received comments in response to the NPRM from a single entity,
the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS), which were submitted on
August 19, 2013. Essentially, BRS questions the basis for eliminating
the requirement for each railroad to file a ``Signal System Five-Year
Report.'' BRS suggests that--rather than eliminating the five-year
reporting requirement--FRA should be shifting its regulatory focus in
the opposite direction by reverting back to an annual report, as was
required prior to 1997.
    FRA currently receives more information about the signal systems of
the Nation's railroads than it has ever received in the past. The
agency regularly receives and reviews signal system reports through
methods such as BSAPs and the various PTC plans, like the PTC
Development Plan (PTCDP) and the PTC Implementation Plan (PTCIP). The
receipt of this information makes FRA more knowledgeable than ever, and
it also renders certain types of other information superfluous. Given
the signal system information reported to FRA through these methods,
FRA does not see a need to rely on the information in the ``Signal
System Five-Year Report'' to further its safety mission. As a result,
there is not a sufficient safety justification to continue requiring
each railroad to file a ``Signal System Five-Year Report'' with FRA.
Returning to a yearly reporting requirement would add even more
regulatory costs without an offsetting safety benefit. Such a move
would increase the reporting burden on the railroads, and conflict with
the goals of E.O. 13610 and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    BRS also questions FRA's statement in the NPRM that the feedback
from the railroad industry and the general public indicated that the
data contained in the ``Signal System Five-Year Report'' is not useful
in providing up-to-date information about railroad signal systems. BRS
contends that FRA's statement in the NPRM was not supported by
documentation.
    The support for FRA's view of the apparent usefulness of the
``Signal System Five-Year Report'' comes directly from the Signal
Division of FRA's Office of Railroad Safety, which is responsible for
handling the reports. Over the course of the last ten years, FRA has
received exactly two requests for data from the report. One of these
requests came from an attorney, and the other came from a signal
supplier. The attorney took a copy of the ``Signal System Five-Year
Report'' for a railroad. The attorney later called the FRA employee
responsible for handling the report and said that the information in
the report was out-of-date and not useful. The signal supplier had a
similar reaction when FRA explained the contents of the report and did
not even bother to take a copy of the data. The supplier further
informed FRA that the data collected was not specific enough to be
helpful.
    Finally, BRS argues that FRA should collect each railroad's signal
system status in real time because it is necessary for FRA to keep
abreast of upcoming technologies railroads intend to use. FRA
recognizes the importance of staying current with the changing
technologies. The agency is increasingly using electronic reporting
methods to gather information in a more efficient and timely manner.
And, as noted above, with the various reporting requirements of PTC
(both subparts H and I of part 236), FRA is being informed more
frequently than ever about the latest railroad signal systems with
railroads filing Product Safety Plans (PSPs), PTCDPs, PTCIPs, and PTC
Safety Plans (PTCSPs) about the upcoming PTC technologies the railroads
plan to use and any signal system upgrades and/or changes that are
being implemented to support the installation of PTC. As technology
moves forward and resources change, there may be additional
opportunities for FRA to take advantage real-time information
collection provided that there is a legal basis for such information
collection, but that does not have any bearing on the efficacy of
continuing to require railroads to file the ``Signal System Five-Year
Report.''
    In FRA's view, the ``Signal System Five-Year Report'' has a very
limited usefulness. The feedback from the public tends to support FRA's
view. Therefore, FRA has made a determination that the railroads that
are subject to the Signal Systems Reporting Requirements in part 233
should not have to commit resources to the time and expense of
collecting the information required by the report.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

PART 233--SIGNAL SYSTEMS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Section 233.9 Reports
    FRA is eliminating the ``Signal System Five-Year Report'' required
by this section and reserving the section for future use. As stated in
the NPRM, eliminating this reporting requirement will reduce the
railroad industry's paperwork burden in a way that does

not endanger the public health, welfare, and safety or our environment.
There are three specific reasons that support FRA's elimination of this
reporting requirement. First, the information contained in the ``Signal
System Five-Year Report'' quickly becomes obsolete. Second, FRA is
better able to determine the status of a railroad's signal system
through other more frequently collected types of information. Third,
the ``Signal System Five-Year Report'' has limited usefulness to the
railroad industry or the general public.
Section 233.13 Criminal Penalty
    After receiving no comments on this proposed amendment, FRA is
making an administrative change to paragraph (b) of this section to
correct two out-of-date statutory citations. Current paragraph (b)
provides that it is unlawful to knowingly and willfully file a false
report or other document required by part 233. Such conduct is
punishable with a fine of $5,000 and up to two years of imprisonment.
The paragraph cites to ``section 209(e) of the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 438(e))'' as statutory authority for the
criminal penalties; however, this statutory provision was repealed,
revised without substantive change, reenacted, and recodified under a
different title of the U.S. Code as part of a reorganization of the
Federal railroad safety statutes by Congress. The provision is
currently housed at 49 U.S.C. 21311. This final rule corrects the
outdated citation in paragraph (b) by replacing ``45 U.S.C. 438(e)''
with the current citation, which is ``49 U.S.C. 21311.'' Paragraph (b)
also cites to ``49 U.S.C. 522(a)''; however, this provision has been
redesignated as simply ``49 U.S.C. 522'' instead. The references in
paragraph (b) are updated accordingly to reflect the current statutory
citations. These updates also are reflected in changes to the
``Authority'' listed for part 233 to accurately state the statutory
bases for this regulatory provision.
Appendix A to Part 233--Schedule of Civil Penalties
    FRA is amending appendix A to part 233, which contains a schedule
of civil penalties for use in connection with this part, in this final
rule to remove and reserve the entry for Sec.  233.9, in accordance
with other amendments being prescribed in this rulemaking.

III. Regulatory Impact

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This rulemaking eliminates the requirement in Sec.  233.9 that each
railroad subject to part 233 file with FRA a ``Signal System Five-Year
Report.'' The final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures. It is not considered a significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. This rule also is not
significant under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 44 FR
11034 (Feb. 26, 1979). A regulatory impact analysis addressing the
economic impact of this final rule has been prepared and placed in the
docket.
    As part of the regulatory evaluation, FRA has explained the
benefits of this final rule and provided monetized assessments of the
value of such benefits. The final rule eliminates the cost associated
with submitting a ``Signal System Five-Year Report.'' Each railroad
currently expends approximately one hour of labor to prepare and submit
the report to FRA every five years. For the 20-year period analyzed,
the estimated cost savings will be $234,265. The present value of this
is $121,904 (using a 7 percent discount rate). This regulation only
reduces the burden on railroads; it does not impose any additional
costs. Therefore, the net benefit of this final rule will be $121,904
(present value, 7 percent).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Public Law 96-354, as
amended, and codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and E.O. 13272--
Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR
53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), require agency review of proposed and final
rules to assess their impact on ``small entities'' for purposes of the
RFA. An agency must prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis
unless it determines and certifies that a rule is not expected to have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator of FRA
certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will
affect all railroads, including small railroads. However, the effect on
these railroads will be purely beneficial and not significant, as it
will reduce their labor burden by eliminating the need to file a
``Signal System Five-Year Report.''
    The term ``small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Section
601(6) defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as ``the
terms `small business', `small organization' and `small governmental
jurisdiction' defined in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of this
section.'' In turn, section 601(3) defines a ``small business'' as
generally having the same meaning as ``small business concern'' under
Section 3 of the Small Business Act. This includes any a small business
concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant
in its field of operation. Next, section 601(4) defines ``small
organization'' as generally meaning any not-for-profit enterprises that
is independently owned and operated, and not dominant in its field of
operations. Additionally, section 601(5) defines ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' in general to include governments of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with
populations less than 50,000.
    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates ``size
standards'' for small entities. It provides that the largest that a
for-profit railroad business firm may be (and still be classified as a
``small entity'') is 1,500 employees for ``Line-Haul Operating''
railroads, and 500 employees for ``Short-Line Operating'' railroads.
See ``Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards,'' 13 CFR part 121
subpart A.
    Under exceptions provided in section 601, Federal agencies may
adopt their own size standards for small entities in consultation with
SBA, and in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant to the authority
provided to it by SBA, FRA has published a ``Final Policy Statement
Concerning Small Entities Subject to the Railroad Safety Laws,'' which
formally establishes small entities as including, among others, the
following: (1) The railroads classified by the Surface Transportation
Board as Class III; and (2) commuter railroads ``that serve populations
of 50,000 or less.'' \4\ See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003)

codified at appendix C to 49 CFR part 209. Currently, the revenue
requirements are $20 million or less in annual operating revenue,
adjusted annually for inflation. The $20 million limit (adjusted
annually for inflation) is based on the Surface Transportation Board's
threshold of a Class III railroad, which is adjusted by applying the
railroad revenue deflator adjustment.\5\ For further information on the
calculation of the specific dollar limit, please see 49 CFR part 1201.
FRA is using this definition of ``small entity'' for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``In the Interim Policy Statement [62 FR 43024 (Aug. 11,
1997)], FRA defined `small entity,' for the purpose of communication
and enforcement policies, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., and the Equal Access for Justice Act 5 U.S.C. 501 et
seq., to include only railroads which are classified as Class III.
FRA further clarified the definition to include, in addition to
Class III railroads, hazardous materials shippers that meet the
income level established for Class III railroads (those with annual
operating revenues of $20 million per year or less, as set forth in
49 CFR 1201.1-1); railroad contractors that meet the income level
established for Class III railroads; and those commuter railroads or
small governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of 50,000 or
less.'' 68 FR 24892 (May 9, 2003). ``The Final Policy Statement
issued today is substantially the same as the Interim Policy
Statement.'' 68 FR 24894.
    \5\ In general, under 49 CFR 1201.1-1, the class into which a
railroad carrier falls is determined by comparing the carrier's
annual inflation-adjusted operating revenues for three consecutive
years to the following scale after the dollar figures in the scale
are adjusted by applying the railroad revenue deflator formula:
    [cir] Class I--$250 million or more;
    [cir] Class II--more than $20 million, but less than $250
million; and
    [cir] Class III--$20 million or less.
    49 CFR 1201.1-1(a), (b)(1). STB's General Instructions at 1-1
state that carriers are grouped into three classes for purposes of
accounting and reporting. The three classes are as follows:
    Class I: Those carriers having annual carrier operating revenues
of $250 million or more after applying STB's railroad revenue
deflator formula shown in Note A.
    Class II: These carriers have annual carrier operating revenues
of less than $250 million but in excess of $20 million after
applying STB's railroad revenue deflator formula.
    Class III: These carriers have annual carrier operating revenues
of $20 million or less after applying STB's railroad revenue.
    The STB Web site indicates that the scale for 2011 is as
follows:
    [cir] Class I--$433,211,345 or more;
    [cir] Class II--more than $34,656,908, but less than
$433,211,345; and
    [cir] Class III--$34,656,908 or less.
    See also 78 FR 21007 (Apr. 8, 2013). It should be noted that
there are some exceptions to this general definition of the three
classes of carriers. As one important example, ``[f]amilies of
railroads operating within the United States as a single, integrated
rail system will be treated as a single carrier for classification
purposes.'' 49 CFR 1201-1.1(b)(1). As another example, ``[a]ll
switching and terminal companies, regardless of their operating
revenues, will be designated Class III carriers.'' 49 CFR 1201-
1.1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates that there are 763 railroads that operate on standard
gage track that is part of the general railroad system of
transportation and therefore subject to part 233, see 49 CFR 233.3, all
of which will be affected by this final rule. Of those railroads, 44
are Class I freight railroads, Class II freight railroads, commuter
railroads serving populations of 50,000 or more, or intercity passenger
railroads (i.e., the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
a Class I railroad, and the Alaska Railroad, a Class II railroad). The
remaining 719 railroads are therefore assumed to be small railroads for
the purpose of this assessment, all of which will be impacted by this
final rule. However, the impact on these small railroads will not be
significant. No other small entities will be affected by this final
rule. FRA estimates that each report takes approximately one labor hour
to prepare and submit to FRA. The elimination of this reporting
requirement will save each railroad one hour of labor every five years.
Therefore, this final rule will have a positive effect on these
railroads, saving each railroad approximately $307 (non-discounted) in
labor costs over the 20-year analysis. Since this amount is extremely
small and entirely beneficial, FRA concludes that this final rule will
not have a significant impact on these railroads.
    Pursuant to the RFA, FRA certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Although a substantial number of small railroads will be affected by
the final rule, none of these entities will be significantly impacted.

C. Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999),
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the E.O. to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.'' Under E.O. 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local government officials early in the process of developing
the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism implications and
preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the regulation.
    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FRA has determined that the final
rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. In addition, FRA has determined that this final rule will
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of
E.O. 13132 do not apply.
    However, this final rule could have preemptive effect by operation
of law under certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety statutes
authorizing part 233, including specifically the former FRSA, repealed
and recodified at 49 U.S.C 20106, and the former Signal Inspection Act
of 1937, repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20501-20505. See Public
Law 103-272 (July 5, 1994). The former FRSA provides that States may
not adopt or continue in effect any law, regulation, or order related
to railroad safety or security that covers the subject matter of a
regulation prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of
Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) or the
Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security
matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order qualifies
under the ``local safety or security hazard'' exception to section
20106.
    In sum, FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. As explained above,
FRA has determined that this final rule has no federalism implications,
other than the possible preemption of State laws under the Federal
statutes authorizing part 233, including the former FRSA and the former
Signal Inspection Act of 1937. Accordingly, FRA has determined that
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for this final
rule is not required.

D. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979, Public Law 96-39, 93 Stat. 144
(July 26, 1979), prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any
standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic
objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles.
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This
rulemaking is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect
trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for
foreign firms doing business in the United States.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. FRA has carefully reviewed the
final rule and any potential PRA implications. Since the present
rulemaking will eliminate the reporting requirement associated with
Sec.  233.9 in its entirety for April 2017 and thereafter, there is no
change to the currently approved burden under OMB No. 2130-0006.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to obtain a copy of the
above currently approved collection of information should contact Mr.
Robert Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone via mail at FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Copies may also be
obtained by telephoning Mr. Brogan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ms. Toone at
(202) 493-6132. (These numbers are not toll-free.) Additionally, copies
may be obtained via email by contacting Mr. Brogan or Ms. Toone at the
following addresses<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
F. Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, Public Law 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531, each Federal agency ``shall,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations
incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202
of the Act, see 2 U.S.C. 1532, further requires that ``before
promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely
to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal
mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year,
and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of
proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written
statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. The final rule will not result in
the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
for inflation) in any one year, and thus preparation of such a
statement is not required.

G. Environmental Assessment

    FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's
Procedures), 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999), as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., other environmental
statutes, executive orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA
has determined that this final rule is not a major FRA action
(requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment) because it is categorically excluded from
detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's
Procedures. See 64 FR 28547 (May 26, 1999).
    In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this final
rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.

H. Energy Impact

    E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' See 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001). Under the E.O., a ``significant energy action'' is
defined as ``any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation
of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance
notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking:
(1)(i) [t]hat is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or
any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.'' FRA has evaluated
this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211. FRA has determined that
this final rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, FRA has
determined that this final rule is not a ``significant energy action''
within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

I. Privacy Act

    FRA wishes to inform all potential petitioners for reconsideration
of the final rule or commenters on any petition for reconsideration of
the final rule that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any agency docket by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, see 65 FR 19477-78, or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 233

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 233 of
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:

PART 233--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 233 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 504, 522, 20103, 20107, 20501-20505,
21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

Sec.  233.9  [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Section 233.9 is removed and reserved.

0
3. Paragraph (b) of Sec.  233.13 is revised as follows:

Sec.  233.13  Criminal penalty.

* * * * *
    (b) Files a false report or other document required to be filed by
this part is subject to a $5,000 fine and 2 years imprisonment as
prescribed by 49 U.S.C. 522 and 49 U.S.C. 21311.

Appendix A to Part 233--[Amended]

0
4. Appendix A is amended by removing and reserving the entry for
``233.9 Annual reports''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2014.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-15336 Filed 7-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68426]
[DOCID:fr10no05-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-71-000]

Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

November 4, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 1, 2005, Nautilus Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Nautilus) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to become effective
December 1, 2005:

First Revised Sheet No. 119
First Revised Sheet No. 120
First Revised Sheet No. 326A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 327
First Revised Sheet No. 328
First Revised Sheet No. 329
Third Revised Sheet No. 330
Third Revised Sheet No. 331
First Revised Sheet No. 332
First Revised Sheet No. 333
First Revised Sheet No. 334

    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 online 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. E5-6231 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

EPA Registration Division contact: Elizabeth Fertich,<PHONE_NUMBER>

TEMPLATE:

BASF Corporation

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition [Insert petition number] from BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3528 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 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide broflanilide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in this petition.  Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only broflanilide, (3-(benzoylmethylamino)-N-[2-bromo-4-[1,2,2,2-tetrafluoro-1- (trifluoromethyl)ethyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-2-fluorobenzamide) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: grain, cereal, except rice, group 15; amaranth grain; quinoa, grain; spelt, grain; cañihua, grain; chia, grain; cram-cram, grain; huauzontle, grain; teff, grain; Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 parts per million (ppm) and commodity vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.04 parts per million (ppm). For food items (animal origin), the following tolerances will be proposed: cattle, meat; goat, meat; horse, meat; sheep, meat at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), and commodity milk, fat; poultry, fat at 0.02 parts per million (ppm), and commodity cattle, fat; sheep, fat; goat, fat at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). For feed items, the following tolerances will be proposed: grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except rice; quinoa, hay; teff, hay; corn, sweet, stover; corn, sweet, forage at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), and commodity corn, field, milled products at 0.015 parts per million (ppm) and potato, wet peel at 0.1 parts per million (ppm)for processed commodities.

In addition, BASF is proposing to establish a tolerance of 0.01 ppm for residues of broflanilide in or on all food items in food handling establishments where food and food products are held, processed, prepared and/or served.  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.

 Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of broflanilide was investigated in seven crops from five different OECD crop categories: tomato (fruits), Japanese radish (vegetables), cabbage (leafy crops), wheat and rice (cereals), soybean (pulses and oilseeds) and tea. The studies were performed with [14]C-broflanilide. Two different radiolabels were used in the studies: [B-ring-U-[14]C]-broflanilide and [C-ring-U-[14]C]-broflanilide. In context of all metabolism studies conducted, both labels were applied, except for the wheat metabolism study, in which only [B-ring-U-[14]C]-broflanilide was used for seed treatment.

Broflanilide represented >= 60% of TRR in all matrices analyzed across all crops, with the exception of the wheat seed treatment study, in which due to the very low radioactive residues no metabolites were identified. In addition, in brown rice (C-label) parent broflanilide only presented 12.5% of TRR due to high amounts of radioactive residues bound to natural components such as starch and proteins.

The results of the plant metabolism studies suggest, that after treatment with broflanilide in plant matrices unchanged broflanilide is the major component. Broflanilide is metabolized by two routes, either demethylation to metabolite DM-8007 by loss of a methyl group or formation of S(PFP-OH)-8007 by oxidative defluorination (substitution of fluorine with hydroxyl); both metabolites approach but do not exceed 10% of TRR.

A confined rotational crop study with application of 14C-broflanilide to bare soil at the highest maximum annual application rate demonstrated low uptake and rapid degradation in the plant of those residues taken up from the soil. Neither parent nor any metabolite exceeded the level of 0.01 mg/kg in any food item at the replant intervals tested (30, 60 and 270 DAT). In feed, B-oxam-acid and B-urea metabolites exceeded the levels of 0.01 mg/kg and 10% TRR in wheat hay only.

Based on the performed studies, the metabolic pathway is considered as similar in a range of crop categories and is well understood.

	2. Analytical method. An independently validated analytical method has been submitted for analyzing residues of parent broflanilide and its metabolites S(PFP-OH)-8007 and DM-8007, each with appropriate sensitivity in all crop and processed commodities. An independently validated analytical method has been submitted for analyzing residues of parent broflanilide plus metabolites DM-8007 and DC-DM-8007 in animal matrices by LC-MS/MS with appropriate sensitivity to allow establishment of tolerances.  The food handling matrices samples were analyzed for broflanilide residues using a combination of the plant and animal methods with minor modifications.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were carried out to determine the magnitude of the residue of broflanilide and its metabolites S(PFP-OH)-8007 and DM-8007 in/on potato, corn (field and sweet), wheat and barley. The number and locations of field trials are in accordance with OPPTS Guideline 860.1500. Field trials were carried out using the maximum label rates, the maximum number of applications, the minimum retreatment interval and the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) for all the crops. Trials in barley and wheat were performed for seed treatment.  Residue studies in corn (in furrow) and potato were performed.  To support a food handling use, investigations were carried out simulating treatment with covered and uncovered food. For the target crops, suitable processing studies were performed indicating no concentrations of residues in humanly consumed food, and limited increases in a few feed items. A limited field rotational crops study was conducted indicating a favorable residue behavior in representative succeeding crops.  The majority of proposed tolerances are at 0.01 mg/kg; all tolerances are supported by field or experimental data.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity. Broflanilide has no significant acute toxicity via oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure routes. The test substance is not irritating to the skin or the eye and is not a dermal sensitizer

	2. Genotoxicty. Broflanilide was negative over a range of standard test batteries, including bacterial and mammalian mutagenicity assays as well as in-vitro and in-vivo mammalian clastogenicity studies.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a 2-generation reproduction study, there were no effects on fertility or reproductive performance at dose levels of up to 15000 ppm  -  the highest dose tested.  Developmental toxicity did not occur in the absence of parental toxicity and no signs of selective developmental toxicity, or evidence for increased susceptibility of the offspring were seen in the 2-generation reproduction study.  Therefore, broflanilide is not considered a reproductive toxicant.

In developmental studies with Wistar rats and New Zealand White rabbits, broflanilide was not associated with teratogenicity, developmental or maternal toxicity at dose levels of up to limit dose (1000 mg/kg bw/d).  Therefore, broflanilide is not considered to be teratogenic.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Subchronic term exposures of broflanilide to rats, mice and dogs by the oral route resulted in some organ weight increases and histopathological findings.  The principal target organ in all studies was the adrenal gland and ovaries, as indicated by organ weight and associated histopathological changes at high doses, characterized by adrenal and ovarian vacuolation, with vacuolar lipid and cholesterol deposits.  Findings at the LOAEL were typically only mildly adverse (compensatory effects, slight changes in clinical chemistry, and organ weight changes without severe histopathological findings) and occurred at dose levels equivalent to, or exceeding kinetically derived maximum dose (KMD).

Dermal exposure of broflanilide to rats for 28-days did not result in any treatment-related changes, up to the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg.  Subchronic inhalation exposures of rats to broflanilide for 28 days resulted in a No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC) of 30 mg/m³, characterized by reversible respiratory portal of entry effects at the LOAEC.  In a subchronic immunotoxicity study, broflanilide showed no signs of immunotoxicity when administered via the diet over a period of 4 weeks to male Wistar rats. The immunotoxicity and systemic effects NOAELs were determined to be the limit dose of 1020 mg/kg bw/d.

	5. Chronic toxicity.  In a rat combined chronic / carcinogenicity study statistically significantly increased incidence of benign, and unilateral, Leydig cell adenomas, ovarian benign granulosa cell tumors and uterine adenocarcinomas were seen at dose levels exceeding KMD.  These tumor incidences showed a general lack of dose response, as well as human relevance.  The carcinogenicity NOAEL for males was 1500 ppm (70 mg/kg bw/day) based on benign Leydig cell adenomas (unilateral) at limit dose.  In females, the carcinogenicity NOAEL was 300 ppm (19 mg/kg bw/day) based on benign granulosa cell tumors at 1500 ppm, albeit not at the next higher limit dose level.  Additionally, increased absolute and relative adrenal weights were observed in males and females at >300 ppm, correlating histopathologically with non-adverse but increased vacuolar lipid and cholesterol deposits.  The chronic NOAEL was 15,000 ppm equivalent to 822 and 1128 mg/kg bw/day, respectively, in males and females.

In an 18-month carcinogenicity study in mice, there was no evidence of carcinogenicity at any dose level in either sex, and the NOAEL was, therefore, 745 or 820 mg/kg bw/day for males and females, respectively.  Broflanilide is proposed to be not likely carcinogenic to humans.  However, all tumor incidences showed non-adverse thresholds and the chronic reference dose will hence be protective of any potential carcinogenicity.

	6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of broflanilide was investigated in the rat, the laying hen and the lactating goat. All studies were performed with [14]C-broflanilide with two labels: the B-label and the C-label. The majority of excreted radioactivity was in the feces for all species across all labels.  Overall metabolic pathways in livestock and rat were noted as similar, but there was more extensive metabolism in livestock than in rat.

The identified metabolites comprise the following phase I and phase II conversions of the parent compound broflanilide.  The most prominent metabolites in goat and hen DM-8007, DC-DM-8007 and the natural product hippuric acid, were identified in the rat metabolism studies.  Hydroxylation of the aromatic ring system followed by phase II conjugation reactions were observed in both livestock and rats. The presence of the crop metabolites DM-8007 and S(PFP-OH)-8007 was observed in both livestock species. Thus, no separate investigations are needed for covering potential feeding of plant material after treatment with broflanilide.  For broflanilide, the ruminant feeding study is relevant for swine as a similar metabolic pathway has been observed in the rat and goat metabolism studies.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Plant, ruminant and environmental metabolites of quantitative significance were evaluated for their safety and hazard profile in multiple test systems, including acute, subchronic and genotoxicity studies.  The metabolites DM-8007 and DC-DM-8007 were not found in significant amounts in the rat metabolism studies; therefore, toxicological investigations were performed.  The metabolites B-oxam-acid and B-urea were only found in feed items during the [14]C rotational crop study after application to bare soil under worst-case conditions. Thus, the potential exposure of humans is very low. Furthermore, the structures of these two polar metabolites does not raise toxicological concerns based on SAR analysis.  Based on the studies conducted with these metabolites, the respective hazard profiles and points of departure did not differ appreciably from the parent molecule.

	8. Endocrine disruption. No special studies have been conducted to determine whether broflanilide induces estrogenic, or other endocrine effects.  However, there were no significant findings in the relevant toxicity studies (e.g., subchronic, chronic, developmental and multigeneration reproduction studies) that suggest that broflanilide produces any endocrine disruption.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. The tolerance expression proposed for monitoring in plant commodities is broflanilide, parent only. The sum of broflanilide and its metabolites S(PFP-OH)-8007 and DM-8007 (expressed as broflanilide) is proposed for inclusion in the tolerance expression for risk assessment for crops.
The proposed tolerance expression for monitoring in animal commodities is broflanilide and its metabolite DM-8007 (expressed as broflanilide). The proposed tolerance expression for dietary risk assessment in animal matrices is broflanilide and its metabolites DM-8007 and DC-DM-8007 (expressed as broflanilide).
Exposure assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population and all sub-populations. The assessments were performed with DEEM-FCID version 4.02 with consumption data from the 2005-2010 NHANES surveys.

	i. Food. Because no acute reference dose is proposed, no acute dietary assessment is conducted.  The proposed endpoint for use in the chronic dietary assessment is shown below.

Table1. Summary of toxicological dose and endpoint for broflanilide in chronic dietary assessment
                               Exposure/scenario
                              Point of departure
                                 Safety factor
                                      RfD
                        Study and toxicological effects
                       Chronic dietary (all populations)
                             NOAEL = 19 mg/kg bw/d
                                      100
                         Chronic RfD = 0.19 mg/kg bw/d
Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study in Wistar Rats. Administration via the Diet up to 24 Months
NOAEL = 300 mg/kg day based on feed

Exposure to broflanilide residues is based on the crop uses supported in this submission.  The chronic dietary exposure assessment was partially refined. The exposure estimates are based on proposed tolerances from the residue trials or livestock calculations assuming 100% CT. For remaining commodities (derived from the food handling use), tolerances of 0.01 mg/kg were modified by the projected probability of % FHE treatment.  Processing factors used include a default concentration value for dried beef and corn syrup, plus experimental values for wheat germ, corn bran and corn flour from the grain processing studies.   The default factor for dried potatoes was replaced with a value of 2.0 X based on the experimental potato processing study.

Drinking water estimation of 0.838 ug/L (0.000838 mg/L) were included in the dietary exposure assessment based on a US surface water model.  Several use patterns were reviewed: seed treatment uses on cereals, corn and potato, and the T-band/in-furrow applications on corn and potato. Of these the corn in furrow-use surface water results in the highest value. This number also accounts for the DC-8007 metabolite in a Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach, which involves re-fitting the kinetic evaluations for the aerobic and anaerobic aquatic studies.  Furthermore, the sorption endpoint and water solubility from the DC-8007 metabolite were used in this worst-case approach.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.19 mg/kg b.w./day for all populations subgroups. The results of the chronic dietary assessment including food and water are presented in Table 2. The most highly exposed population sub-group was non-nursing infants and children 1-2 years of age which utilized 0.1% RfD.

Table 2.  Results for BAS 450 I Chronic Dietary Exposure (Food and Water) Considering All Current, Pending, and Proposed Tolerances using DEEM-FCID
                                Sub-Population
                               mg/kg body wt/day
                                Percent of RfD
Total US Population
                                   0.000110
                                     0.10%
All Infants
                                   0.000203
                                     0.10%
Children 1-2
                                   0.000276
                                     0.10%
Children 3-5
                                   0.000230
                                     0.10%
Children 6-12
                                   0.000159
                                     0.10%
Youth 13-19
                                   0.000106
                                     0.10%
Adults 20-49
                                   0.000094
                                     0.00%
Adults 50-99
                                   0.000083
                                     0.00%
Female 13-49
                                   0.000088
                                     0.00%

The results of the risk assessment show that for all populations the exposures are below a level of concern (< 100% cPAD). Additional refinements in the dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing anticipated residue values, percent crop treated values) would further reduce the estimated exposure values.

	ii. Drinking water.  The consumption of broflanilide residues in drinking water was included in the chronic dietary assessments above.

	2. Non-dietary exposure.
BASF is proposing indoor residential uses of broflanilide that could lead to non-dietary exposure of consumers.   Based on review of the comprehensive toxicology database for broflanilide, BASF concludes that no dermal hazard was identified and therefore dermal exposures are not assessed.  In addition, because the inhalation NOAEL is based on portal of entry effects, inhalation exposures are not aggregated with oral exposures based on different toxicological effects.  The incidental oral exposures for aggregation are based on the worst-case indoor use for crack and crevice application for nuisance pest control.  Short-term aggregate exposure and risk for food, water and residential use are shown in the table below.  The calculated MOEs for the aggregate exposures are well above the target MOE of 100 indicating that these exposures are not of concern.

   Table 3. Estimated Short-Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk for Broflanilide (Food, Drinking Water, and Residential exposure)
                                Sub-Population
                                  Target MOE
                         Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/day)
                     Incidental Oral Exposure (mg/kg/day)
                                Total Exposure
                                  (mg/kg/day)
                               Aggregate MOE[1]
                                   Total US
                                      100
                                   0.000110
                                      NA
                                   0.000110
                                    172727
                               Child 1-2 yr old
                                      100
                                   0.000276
                                   0.000529
                                   0.000805
                                     23613
   [1] NOAEL = 19 mg/kg bw/day

D. Cumulative Effects

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to broflanilide. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, BASF has not assumed that broflanilide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from the aggregate exposure to broflanilide from the proposed uses.

	2. Infants and children. Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children from the aggregate exposure to broflanilide from the proposed uses.

F. International Tolerances

No CODEX or European Union Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) have been established for broflanilide.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18785-18787]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG22-72-000.
    Applicants: Byrd Ranch Storage LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Byrd Ranch Storage LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220324-5218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2119-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Versant Power.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: Versant Power; ER20-2119--Joint Offer of Settlement to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2919-002.
    Applicants: Camp Grove Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Camp Grove Wind Farm LLC submits Compliance Filing as
directed in February 25, 2022 Commission Letter Order.
    Filed Date: 3/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220324-5206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1433-000.
    Applicants: Borough of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.
    Description: Request for Prospective Waiver of Tariff Provisions.
    Filed Date: 3/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220322-5197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1443-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3194R1 Prairie Breeze Wind
Energy GIA to be effective 3/4/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1444-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, SA No. 6383;
Queue No. NQ-65 to be effective 2/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5027.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1445-000.
    Applicants: Daylight I, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Facilities Use Agreements to
be effective 5/25/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1446-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SCE Revision to Formula Rate
Tariff Authorized 2022 PBOPs Expense Amount to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1447-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2022-
03-25_SA 2686 Ameren-SIPC Adams Road Proj Spec 2 to be effective 5/25/
2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1448-000.
    Applicants: PECO Energy Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PECO Energy Company submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: PECO submits Revisions to Att. H-7A
regarding Formula Rate Template to be effective 5/27/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1449-000.
    Applicants: GB II Connecticut LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and Submission
of New eTariff Baseline and Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1450-000.
    Applicants: GB II New Haven LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and Submission
of New eTariff Baseline and Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1451-000.
    Applicants: Edwards Solar Line I, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificates of Concurrence
for Facilities Use Agreements to be effective 5/25/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1452-000.
    Applicants: Sanborn Solar Line I, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificates of Concurrence
for Facilities Use Agreements to be effective 5/25/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1453-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 6387; Queue No. AG1-291 to be effective 2/23/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1454-000.
    Applicants: LI Solar Generation, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: LI Solar Generation, LLC
Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 5/25/
2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1455-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing and Notice of
Change to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1456-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing and Notice of
Change to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1457-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Generation Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing and Notice of
Change to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1458-000.
    Applicants: Summit Farms Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing and Notice of
Change to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1459-000.
    Applicants: Scott-II Solar LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing and Notice of
Change to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1460-000.
    Applicants: Wilkinson Solar LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing and Notice of
Change to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1461-000.
    Applicants: Greensville County Solar Project, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing and Notice of
Change to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1462-000.
    Applicants: Hardin Solar Energy LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing and Notice of
Change to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220325-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH22-8-000.
    Applicants: Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
    Description: Canada Pension Plan Investment Board submits FERC 65-B
Notice of Change in Fact to Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 3/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220324-5216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,

service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information,
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 25, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06789 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6001-6002]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: February 21, 2019, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
    * Note--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's website at http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ using the
eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

                                          1052nd Meeting--Open Meeting
                                         [February 21, 2019, 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Item No.                                  Docket No.                                  Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Administrative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.......................  AD19-1-000.............................................  Agency Administrative
                                                                                Matters.
A-2.......................  AD19-2-000.............................................  Customer Matters,
                                                                                Reliability, Security and
                                                                                Market Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.......................  RM17-8-001.............................................  Reform of Generator
                                                                                Interconnection Procedures
                                                                                and Agreements.
E-2.......................  RM18-15-000............................................  Interlocking Officers and
                                                                                Directors; Requirements
                                                                                for Applicants and
                                                                                Holders.
E-3.......................  RM19-4-000.............................................  Implementation of Amended
                                                                                Section 203(a)(1)(B) of
                                                                                the Federal Power Act.
E-4.......................  ER19-697-000, EL19-41-000..............................  Cheyenne Light, Fuel and
                                                                                Power Company.
E-5.......................  ER18-1598-001, EL18-77-000.............................  New York Independent System
                                                                                Operator, Inc., Central
                                                                                Hudson Gas & Electric
                                                                                Corporation.
E-6.......................  ER17-1561-002, ER17-1561-003...........................  New York Independent System
                                                                                Operator, Inc.
E-7.......................  ER19-538-000...........................................  California Independent
                                                                                System Operator
                                                                                Corporation.
E-8.......................  ER19-308-000...........................................  California Independent
                                                                                System Operator
                                                                                Corporation.

E-9.......................  ER18-1169-002..........................................  California Independent
                                                                                System Operator
                                                                                Corporation.
E-10......................  EL18-200-000...........................................  Jacksonville Electric
                                                                                Authority.
E-11......................  ER19-550-000, EL18-119-000.............................  Tucson Electric Power
                                                                                Company.
E-12......................  ER18-1259-001..........................................  Vermont Transco, LLC.
E-13......................  ER18-810-000...........................................  FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
E-14......................  ER18-809-000...........................................  FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
E-15......................  ER18-1596-001, EL18-112-000............................  Sky River LLC.
E-16......................  EL18-108-000...........................................  Pacific Gas and Electric
                                                                                Company.
E-17......................  EL18-203-000...........................................  Owensboro Municipal
                                                                                Utilities v. Louisville
                                                                                Gas and Electric Company
                                                                                and Kentucky Utilities
                                                                                Company.
E-18......................  ER18-1704-001..........................................  Stuttgart Solar, LLC.
E-19......................  EL18-171-000...........................................  Kathryn E. Leonard v. Rhode
                                                                                Island Public Utilities
                                                                                Commission, Narragansett
                                                                                Electric Company, Inc.,
                                                                                and Deepwater Wind Block
                                                                                Island, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1.......................  RP18-922-000...........................................  Trailblazer Pipeline
                                                                                Company LLC.
G-2.......................  IS08-390-010, IS08-390-011.............................  SFPP, L.P.
G-3.......................  RP19-276-000, RP19-276-001.............................  Young Gas Storage Company,
                                                                                Ltd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hydro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.......................  RM19-13-000............................................  Revisions and Technical
                                                                                Corrections to Conform the
                                                                                Commission's Regulations
                                                                                to the America's Water
                                                                                Infrastructure Act of
                                                                                2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.......................  CP18-506-000, CP18-539-000.............................  Portland Natural Gas
                                                                                Transmission System,
                                                                                Maritimes & Northeast
                                                                                Pipeline, L.L.C.
C-2.......................  CP18-534-000...........................................  Northern Natural Gas
                                                                                Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: February 14, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
    A free webcast of this event is available through http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/. Anyone with internet access who desires to
view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ or contact
Shirley Al-Jarani at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2019-03260 Filed 2-21-19; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P