[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19500]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07032]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL22-35-000]

Indeck Niles, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On March 28, 2022, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL22-35-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation into whether Indeck Niles,
LLC's proposed Rate Schedule \1\ is unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. Indeck Niles,
LLC, 178 FERC ] 61,227 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Indeck Niles, LLC, Tariffs, Rates Schedules, and Agreements,
Reactive Rate Schedule, Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 (0.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL22-35-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL22-35-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2021), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: March 29, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07032 Filed 4-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 78467]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Connected Vehicle Research Program Public Meeting; Notice of
Public Meeting

AGENCY: ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent
Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) will host a public
meeting seeking stakeholder input and public sector guidance to the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Research and Innovative
Technology Administration (RITA) Connected Vehicle Systems. The meeting
will take place Thursday, January 16, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. (EST) to
4:00 p.m. (EST) in the Hampton Room at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500
Calvert Street, NW in Washington, DC. Remote participation will be
available via webinar. Persons planning to attend the meeting or
participate in the webinar should register online at www.itsa.org/policy2014.
    The USDOT would like input from transportation infrastructure
owner/operators on their needs for guidelines, tools, resources, and
policies that will support the successful implementation and operations
of connected vehicle technologies. The primary target audience for the
meeting is State and local Departments of Transportation, transit
operators, other operating agencies, and infrastructure owners who are
starting to plan for the deployment and use of connected vehicle
technologies in their area. While the meeting is specifically focused
for an audience that has followed connected vehicle research and is
formulating plans for implementation, it is open to other stakeholders
in the connected vehicle community, including national associations and
the general public.
    Attendees will be asked to discuss their needs for guidelines,
tools, and resources to best support their decisions and deployments.
Attendees will also be asked to identify anticipated institutional
challenges. The results of the meeting will be used as input for FHWA's
development of Connected Vehicle guidance that is expected in 2015 and
will also inform the Federal Transit Administration.
    For more information, please contact Robert Arnold, FHWA, Director,
Office of Transportation Management at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agenda items for the meeting are subject to
change. Meeting information will be posted to the Web site http://www.its.dot.gov/.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on the 19th day of December 2013.
John Augustine,
Managing Director, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-30733 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51844]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0461; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-16, V-31, V-93, V-
157, V-213, and V-229 in the Vicinity of Patuxent River, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on July 12, 2017, proposing to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways V-16, V-31, V-93, V-157, V-213, and V-229 near
Patuxent River, MD, due to the planned decommissioning of the Patuxent
VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) (PXT), Patuxent River, MD, in
support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Subsequent to the NPRM, the PXT VORTAC decommissioning has been delayed
until a to-be-determined date. The FAA decided that additional planning
is necessary to ensure a more efficient implementation and integration
with other ongoing VOR MON program activities, and determined that
withdrawal of the proposed rule is warranted.

DATES: Effective September 17, 2021, the proposed rule published July
12, 2017 (82 FR 32149), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for Docket No. FAA-2017-0461 (82 FR 32149; July 12, 2017),
amending VOR Federal airways V-16, V-31, V-93, V-157, V-213, and V-229
due to the planned decommissioning of the Patuxent VORTAC which
provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected airways.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was
received. The commenter recommended that for VOR NAVAIDs that are to be
decommissioned, and for those airways that are correspondingly removed,
the FAA should create an Area Navigation (RNAV) waypoint at the
previous NAVAID location, and convert all fixes and intersections along
that route to RNAV waypoints.

FAA's Conclusions

    The FAA has reviewed the Patuxent VORTAC decommissioning project
and determined that additional planning meetings are warranted to
ensure a more efficient implementation and integration with other
ongoing program activities; therefore, the NPRM is withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the NPRM
published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2017 (82 FR 32149), FR
Doc. 2017-14524, is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 13, 2021.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-20010 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3720-3721]
[DOCID:fr22ja10-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3218-046]

City of Orrville, OH; Notice of Application for Surrender of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

January 14, 2010.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Surrender of License.
    b. Project No.: 3218-046.
    c. Date Filed: December 28, 2009.
    d. Applicant: City of Orrville, Ohio.
    e. Name of Project: Pike Island Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The unconstructed project was to be located at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Pike Island Locks and Dam on the Ohio
River in Ohio County, West Virginia, and Belmont County, Ohio.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: City of Orrville, Ohio, Attn: Daniel R. Lutz,
Law Director, 100 N. Vine Street, Orrville, OH 44667; telephone (330)
684-5010, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or City of Orrville, Ohio,
Attn: Dave Handwerk, Mayor, 207 N. Main Street, Orrville, OH 44667,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Diane M. Murray, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> and e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: February 16, 2010. Comments, motions to intervene, and
protests may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings, please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee filed an application to
surrender its license for the unconstructed Pike Island Hydroelectric
Project. The Licensee has not commenced construction of the project. No
ground disturbing activities have occurred.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1190 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18493-18495]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07811]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0352]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Recreation Vehicle
Industry Association Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption from the
Federal commercial driver's license (CDL) requirements for drivers who
deliver certain newly manufactured motorhomes and recreational vehicles
(RVs) to dealers or trade shows before retail sale (driveaway
operations). The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
requested the exemption because compliance with the CDL requirements
prevents its members from implementing more efficient operations due to
a shortage of CDL drivers. The exemption covers employees of all U.S.
driveaway companies, RV manufacturers, and RV dealers transporting RVs
between manufacturing sites and dealer locations and for movements
prior to first retail sale. Drivers engaged in driveaway deliveries of
RVs with gross vehicle weight ratings of 26,001 pounds or more will not
be required to have a CDL as long as the empty RVs have gross vehicle
weights or gross combination weights that do not meet or exceed 26,001
pounds, and any RV trailers towed by other vehicles weigh 10,000 pounds
or less. RV units that have a combined gross vehicle weight exceeding
26,000 pounds are not covered by the exemption.

DATES: This exemption is effective April 6, 2015 and expires on April
6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Pearlie Robinson, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 2 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Application for Exemption

    The RVIA is the national trade association representing RV
manufacturers and their component parts suppliers who together build
more than 98 percent of all RVs produced in the United States. An RV is
a vehicle designed as temporary living quarters for recreational,
camping, travel and seasonal use. RVs may be motorized (motorhomes) or
towable (travel trailers, fifth wheel trailers, folding camping
trailers and truck campers).
    The RVIA requested an exemption from the CDL requirements under 49
CFR 383.91(a)(1)-383.91(a)(2) when transporting RVs with an actual
vehicle weight not exceeding 26,000 pounds, or a combination of RV
trailer/tow vehicle with the actual weight of the towed unit not
exceeding 10,000 pounds and the gross combined weight not exceeding
26,000 pounds. In other words, RVIA requested that CDLs not be required
for driveaway operations of single or combination vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating at or above 26,001 pounds, as long as the actual
weight of the vehicle or combination is below 26,001 pounds. RV units
that have a ship weight and combined gross vehicle weight exceeding
26,000 pounds would not be covered by the exemption. RVIA contended
that compliance with the CDL rule prevents its members from
implementing more efficient operations due to a shortage of CDL
drivers. RVIA asserted that FMCSA should look at the actual weight of
the RV when it is manifested as empty and should not require a CDL
during the short time the RV is not loaded, does not carry freight, and
is transported from the factory where it is manufactured, or from a
holding area, to a dealership site.
    In its application, RVIA contended that a shortage of drivers with
CDLs is having a significant impact on the RV industry, which is just
recovering from the 2008-2009 economic downturn. A large percentage of
RV sales occur during the spring buying season. The jump in RV
shipments trends stronger each month, increasing consistently from
February through June. These excess units regularly accumulate in RV

transporters' yards. It is in this period that there is insufficient
commercial driver capacity for RV transportation. The seasonal
commercial driver shortage creates delays in the delivery of product to
consumers and potentially reduces the RV sales. Consumers who wish to
purchase an RV may have to wait weeks or months to receive delivery of
their purchase because there are not enough drivers with CDLs to
transport the vehicles from the factory to the dealership, especially
since each RV must be individually transported. While these delays are
costly and inconvenient to the RV industry and consumers, the greater
costs result in potential lost sales to consumers who are unwilling to
wait for their purchase.
    RVIA stated that the exemption would apply to all individuals who
are employees of driveaway-towaway companies, RV manufacturers, and RV
dealers. RVIA contended that, due to the class nature and the number of
parties that will be affected by the exemption, it is not feasible or
practicable to provide the names of individuals or transporters
responsible for use or operation of these CMVs. RVIA asserted that
exempting drivers delivering a subset of newly manufactured RVs from
the Class A and B CDL requirements would likely result in the level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the
exemption. RVIA noted that a CDL is not required to operate these RVs
when they are in personal use.

Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    RVIA contended that, if the exemption were granted, the level of
safety associated with transportation of RVs from manufacturers to
dealers would likely be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety obtained by complying with the CDL requirements for the
following reasons:
     On average, drivers employed by RV manufacturers and
dealers to deliver RVs have substantially more experience operating RVs
than a typical driver operating an RV for recreational purposes.
     A thorough analysis using the FMCSA Safety Measurement
System revealed that the RV driveaway-towaway companies' record of
0.234 recordable accidents per million miles traveled in 2012 is far
less than the national average of 0.747 recordable accidents per
million miles traveled that was used as a benchmark by the FMCSA in
fiscal years 1994-1996 when developing criteria for ''Factor 6,
Accident'' of the ``safety rating process.''
     FMCSA established an ``unsatisfactory rating'' threshold
for all carriers operating outside of a 100 air-mile radius with a
recordable accident rate greater than 1.5 accidents per million miles
traveled. Accordingly RVIA claims that the, RV driveaway-towaway
accident frequency is approximately 640% less than the FMCSA
unsatisfactory rating threshold for 2012, the most recent year for
which data is available. [In fact, RVIA's data shows that the accident
frequency of RVs in 2012 (.234 per million miles) was only 15.6% of
FMCSA's threshold for an unsatisfactory rating (1.5 accidents per
million miles) (.23 / 1.5-15.6%)]
     Compared to drivers using RVs for recreational purposes,
RV manufacturers and driveaway-towaway companies have substantially
greater economic incentive to systematically train, monitor and
evaluate their RV drivers with respect to safe operation of RVs because
of substantially greater exposure to liability for any traffic
accidents.
     As with any new motor vehicle, newly manufactured RVs are
much less likely to present a safety concern due to mechanical
failures.
     Travel distances between the manufacturing sites and
dealer locations are on average much shorter than typical distances
which RVs travel when in recreational use and the highway presence of
RVs transported from manufacturers to dealers is negligible even during
the peak spring delivery season.
    RVIA asserted that without the exemption, drivers making one-time
deliveries of new RVs with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
exceeding 26,000 pounds, or a gross combination weight rating exceeding
26,000 inclusive of a towed vehicle with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds or
higher, will remain subject to CDL requirements even though end-users
of RVs purchasing them from dealers in the same States would not be
subject to those requirements and regulations. This anomalous situation
would continue to materially curb the growth of the RV industry without
countervailing safety or other benefit to the public. In particular, RV
manufacturers and dealers would continue to experience a shortage of
CDL operators during the busy spring season.

Public Comments

    On October 1, 2014, FMCSA published notice of this application, and
asked for public comment (79 FR 59343). Twelve comments were received
to the public docket.
    One respondent, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates), recommended that the exemption not be granted. The
Advocates concluded that ``the RVIA application does not meet the
statutory and regulatory requirements for the exemption. Advocates
argue that the application fails to consider practical alternatives,
justify the need for the exemption, provide information on the specific
countermeasures to be undertaken to ensure that the exemption will
achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved
absent the exemption.''
    Ten respondents supported the exemption: Campers Inn; Class
Transport, Inc.; Florida RV Trade Association; Horizon Transport, Inc.;
Pennsylvania Recreation Vehicle and Camping Association; Quality Drive-
Away Inc.; Foremost Transport, Inc.; Recreation Vehicle Indiana
Council; National RV Dealers Association; and Star Fleet Trucking, Inc.
    The American Truck Dealers Division of the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADD) also supported the exemption and urged FMCSA
to expand the requested exemption so that it applies to all new motor
vehicles with an actual vehicle weight (or combination weight) below
26,000 lbs.
    All comments are available for review in the docket for this
notice.

Response to Public Comments and Agency Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated RVIA's application for exemption and the
public comments, and has decided to grant the exemption. The RVs
covered by the exemption all have gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs)
above the 26,001-pound threshold for a CDL, but their actual weights,
i.e., their gross vehicle weights (GVWs), will remain below that level
during the driveaway or towaway operation of these vehicles. The Agency
has held since 1993 that the CDL regulations do not apply to drivers of
RVs, ``if the vehicle is used strictly for non-business purposes''
[Guidance to Q. 3 under 49 CFR 383.3, 58 FR 60734, at 60735, Nov. 17,
1993; posted on www.fmcsa.dot.gov]. For decades private owners and
drivers of larger RVs, like those addressed in this exemption, have
operated without CDLs, often at GVWs well above the 26,001-pound
threshold, without generating any concern among law enforcement
professionals that they pose a risk to highway safety. Furthermore,
most private RV owners almost certainly have less experience behind the
wheel of the RV than drivers

employed specifically to deliver such vehicles to a dealer or customer.
While RVIA demonstrated that the manufacturers and dealers who now
employ CDL-holders in driveaway/towaway operations have a recordable
accident rate far below the level that would require an unsatisfactory
safety rating, the Agency's experience with private RV owners suggests
that the absence of a CDL would have no discernible effect on safety.
That is especially likely because the drivers covered by this exemption
are required to comply with all other applicable safety regulation,
including medical standards and hours-of-service limits. FMCSA believes
that it is impracticable for these drivers to obtain a CDL with a
representative vehicle when the actual vehicle they will operate is an
RV. With regard to NADD's comment to expand the exemption, FMCSA is
unable to consider expanding the exemption because the issue was not in
the original request for public comment. The Agency believes that the
exemption sought by RVIA will likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the
exemption [49 CFR 381.305(a)].

Terms and Conditions of the Exemption

Period of the Exemption

    This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 383.91(a)(1)--
383.91(a)(2) is effective during the period of April 6, 2015 through
April 6, 2017. The exemption will expire on April 6, 2017, 11:59 p.m.
local time, unless renewed.

Extent of the Exemption

    The exemption is restricted to employees of driveaway-towaway
companies, RV manufacturers, and RV dealers transporting RVs between
the manufacturing site and dealer location and for movements prior to
first retail sale. Drivers covered by the exemption will not be
required to hold a CDL when transporting RVs with a gross vehicle
weight not exceeding 26,000 pounds, or a combination of RV trailer/tow
vehicle with the gross weight of the towed unit not exceeding 10,000
pounds and the gross combined weight not exceeding 26,000 pounds. These
drivers must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this
exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation
that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect
to a firm or person operating under the exemption.

Notification to FMCSA

    The RVIA must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident
(as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carriers' CMVs
operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must
include the following information:
    a. Date of the accident,
    b. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    c. Driver's name and driver's license number and State of issuance,
    d. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
    e. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    f. Number of fatalities,
    g. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    h. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws
or motor carrier safety regulations, and
    i. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.

Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should
this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public
interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. The
FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to
comply with its terms and conditions.

    Issued on: March 31, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-07811 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


APRIL 19, 2004 Page 1 of 28 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Background Document May 4 6, 2004 meeting Proposed Hazard Identification Methodology for Assessment of Dermal Sensitization Risk Timothy F. McMahon, Ph. D. Jonathan Chen, Ph. D. Antimicrobials Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 APRIL 19, 2004 Page 2 of 28 Introduction Among the many types of risk assessments conducted in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) is an assessment of the dermal sensitization potential of pesticide chemicals. As noted in 40 CFR 798.4100, " Information derived from tests for skin sensitization serves to identify the possible hazard to a population repeatedly exposed to a test substance." Information from this test is qualitatively assessed and, if appropriate, precautionary language is included on the pesticide label as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Material Data Safety Sheets ( MSDS). Occupational dermal exposures to known or suspected dermal sensitizing pesticide chemicals can be then dealt with appropriately, either through engineering controls or use of personal protective equipment. Non occupational exposures can normally be dealt with through precautionary label statements.

Data available through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH)

indicate that occupational exposure to dermal irritants and contact allergens accounts for a significant number of occupational illness and that chemical agents are the most frequent cause of such illness. Specific national occupational disease and illness data are available from the U. S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). The BLS conducts annual surveys of approximately 174,000 employers, selected to represent all private industries in the U. S. The goal is to ascertain the total numbers and incidence rates of occupational injuries and illnesses. The survey results are then projected to estimate the numbers and incidence rates of injuries and illnesses in the American working population. All occupational skin diseases or disorders, including occupational contact dermatitis ( OCD), are tabulated in this survey. In 1999, of over 372,000 occupational illnesses APRIL 19, 2004 Page 3 of 28 reported, 12% were reported as skin diseases/ disorders, making this the most common nontrauma related occupational illness ( NIOSH, 2001). The economic impact of occupational skin diseases/ disorders is also significant. As measured by direct medical cost and worker compensation, the total annual cost of occupational skin disease may range from $ 222 million to $ 1 billion ( NIOSH, 2001).

While pesticide chemicals can usually be labeled to warn of potential dermal sensitization effects,

there also exists the manufacture of " treated articles or substances" ( 40 CFR 152.25), in which a registered pesticide is incorporated into the article to protect the integrity of the article or substance itself ( such as paint treated with a pesticide to protect the paint coating or wood products treated to protect the wood against fungal or insect decay). Under such circumstances of use, the general public may unknowingly be exposed to pesticide chemical residue in the treated article. Therefore, prior to such use, the pesticide chemical must first be registered under FIFRA, which requires that the manufacturer of the pesticide demonstrate that it can be used without unreasonable risks to humans or the environment. Treated articles such as preserved wood, however, do not bear a pesticide label or effectively use other communication methods to inform and protect people against potential hazards, including the potential for dermal sensitization Purpose The focus of this paper is on the Agency's interest in developing the foundation of a scientifically APRIL 19, 2004 Page 4 of 28 sound approach to quantitative assessment of dermal sensitization risk to pesticide chemicals,

including pesticide chemicals that are incorporated into other materials ( i. e. treated articles). The Agency is interested in obtaining expert advice on methods published in the scientific literature that have been proposed for use in determining induction thresholds and elicitation thresholds for chemicals known or suspected of causing allergic contact dermatitis. The Agency is also interested in seeking advice on whether there are any susceptibility issues in the general population with respect to development of allergic contact dermatitis, including any potential special sensitivity of children. The Agency will present hexavalent chromium as a case study of a known dermal sensitizer, and possible approaches to quantitating risk of allergic contact dermatitis from exposure to hexavalent chromium.

Dermal Sensitization Dermal sensitization, also known as allergic contact dermatitis ( ACD), delayed contact hypersensitivity, or Type IV allergic contact dermatitis, is defined by Marzulli and Maibach ( 1996)

as a delayed, immunologically mediated, inflammatory skin disease consisting of various degrees of erythema, edema, and vesiculation. Kimber ( 2004) has also defined sensitization as " stimulation by chemical allergen ( in an inherently susceptible individual) of an immune response of the quality and vigor required to permit the provocation of an elicitation reaction upon subsequent encounter with the same chemical." ACD is typically characterized by two phases,

termed induction and elicitation. Induction occurs when there is an exposure of sufficient magnitude and/ or duration to activate specific immune mechanisms resulting in the acquisition of APRIL 19, 2004 Page 5 of 28 sensitization, while elicitation occurs from a subsequent exposure to the same chemical allergen.

As it is generally recognized that a certain level of allergen exposure must be attained to induce immune activation in susceptible individuals, dermal sensitization is characterized as a threshold type of response. However, dose response relationships are observed for both the induction and elicitation phases of ACD ( Gerberick and Robinson, 2000; Kimber et al., 2003; Scott et al.,

2002), and thresholds for induction can be reached following either a single sufficiently high amount of exposure to the allergenic chemical, or after contact with a large area of skin, or as a consequence of repeated skin applications ( Marzulli and Maibach, 1996). Experiments with 2,4

dinitrochlorobenzene ( DNCB) and other sensitizers have shown that a single contact can be sufficient for sensitization, but less data exist of the relationship between lower area doses and repeated contacts over a longer time period ( Griem et al., 2003). A study summarized by Griem et al., ( 2003) and conducted by Vandenburg and Epstein ( 1963) in which previously non sensitized persons were exposed to nickel chloride suggested that subclinical sensitization occurred in some of the subjects who responded negatively from the first test, as an increased percentage of nonsensitized subjects responded positively upon a repetition of the test four months later. More studies are needed in this area.

To be capable of inducing an allergenic response, the chemical itself must possess certain characteristics. Those chemicals able to cause sensitization are usually low molecular weight protein reactive substances that can gain access to the viable epidermis via the stratum corneum,

and are also able to cause sufficient local trauma to induce cutaneous cytokines and be inherently antigenic and recognized by responsive T lymphocytes. APRIL 19, 2004 Page 6 of 28 INDUCTION ELICITATION LOW MOLECULAR WT ALLERGEN MIGRATION TO LOCAL LYMPH NODE IL 1  , IL 6, IL 12 IL 1  , TNF  , GM CSF T CELL LYMPHOCYTE PROLIFERATION ICAM 1 LANGERHANS CELL ( LC) Once through the stratum corneum, the allergen makes contact with the Langerhans cell, a member of the bone marrow derived dendritic cell family whose function is to act as a ` sentinel'

cell and serve as a trap for antigens entering the skin ( Kimber, in Marzulli and Maibach, 1996).

Langerhans cells then direct the allergen to a regional lymph node, where interaction with T lymphocyte s occurs, followed by proliferatio n of lymphocytes that have been ` prime d' to react against the presented antigen. A subsequent contact with the allergen will result in elicitation of the sensitization response due to the reaction of sensitized lymphocytes with the allergen. The process is illustrated in the following diagram: APRIL 19, 2004 Page 7 of 28 " PRIMED" LYMPHOCYTES SPECIFIC INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE CYTOKINES, COSTIMULATORY, ADHESION MOLECULES INCREASE CELLULAR INFLUX * Illustration by D. Sailstad EDEMA AND ERYTHEMA From: Sailstad, D. M. ( 2003): Allergic Contact H ypersensitivity: Mechanisms and Methods. In: Alternative T oxicological Methods. Harry Salem and Sidney Katz, eds. , C RC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Pages 193 205.

It should also be noted that in addition to Langerhans cells, epidermal cytokines and chemokines may also play a role in the development of the sensitization response. This is based on the observation that the functional activity of Langerhans cells and presumably other cutaneous antigen presenting cells, is regulated largely by the availability of cytokines ( Kimber, in Marzulli and Maibach, 1996). APRIL 19, 2004 Page 8 of 28 While it is generally accepted that the necessary exposure for induction of dermal sensitization is greater than the exposure needed to elicit sensitization, it is important to recognize that thresholds are largely determined by the potency of the chemical allergen and that induction and elicitation thresholds vary among individuals ( Kimber et al., 2003). It is thus necessary to consider doseresponse relationships in establishing " safe" levels for prevention of induction and elicitation. A recent investigation by Scott et al. ( 2002) examined the quantitative relationship between sensitization and elicitation concentrations and the ability to elicit an ACD reaction in murine models. Using two established sensitizers ( DNCB and squaric acid dibutyl ester ( SADBE),

doseresponse relationships were determined using the LLNA to derive EC3 values for both chemicals.

Then, for DNCB, various elicitation concentrations were tested in mice that had been induced to various concentrations of DNCB. As the sensitizing concentration of DNCB increased, it was observed that the concentration required to elicit measurable sensitization in sensitized mice decreased. That is, mice who had been sensitized to higher concentrations of DNCB required less DNCB to elicit a measurable sensitization response. For SADBE, two different elicitation concentrations were compared over a range of induction concentrations. The group given the higher elicitation concentration showed measurable sensitization at lower induction concentrations. The results of this study suggested that, as the induction dose was increased ( using DNCB), the concentration required for elicitation was decreased. Correspondingly, as the elicitation concentration was increased ( using SADBE), the concentration required for induction APRIL 19, 2004 Page 9 of 28 was decreased.

Hazard Identification It is desirable to be able to conduct quantitative assessments for dermal sensitization in order to prevent consumers especially from developing ACD when dermal contact, including repeated dermal contact, could not be completely avoided ( Griem et al., 2003). In the case of hexavalent chromium as a component of treated wood, this is important, as there would be repeated dermal contact with the treated wood surface when this treated wood is used in residential decking and playground structures.

There are several accepted methods for hazard identification of dermal sensitization, including the Buehler occluded patch test, the guinea pig maximization test, and the murine local lymph node assay ( LLNA). The guinea pig maximization test and the Buehler test, while providing reliable information on whether a substance is a skin sensitizer or not, are best suited only for hazard identification.

By contrast with the Buehler test and maximization test, the Mouse Local Lymph Node Assay ( LLNA) is a more recent test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis ( skin sensitization) potential of chemicals, specifically the induction phase of sensitization. Using the incorporation of radiolabeled thymidine or iododeoxyuridine into DNA, the LLNA measures APRIL 19, 2004 Page 10 of 28 lymphocyte proliferation in the draining lymph nodes of mice topically exposed to the test article.

The stimulation index ( ratio of lymphocyte proliferation in treated mice compared to controls) is used as the indicator of potential sensitization. In 1998, following review by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP), the LLNA was incorporated as a screening test in OPPTS Test Guideline 870.2600 Skin Sensitization. In 1999, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods ( ICCVAM) Immunotoxicity Working Group ( IWG)

recommended the LLNA as a stand alone alternative for contact sensitization hazard assessment, provided that certain protocol modifications were made. Following additional studies to validate the method, the FIFRA SAP agreed with the Agency proposal that the LLNA was applicable for testing chemicals to elicit contact sensitization and should be considered a preferred, stand alone assay. The OPPTS guideline 870.2600 ( Skin Sensitization) has been revised to include the LLNA as a stand alone assay for appropriate applications. The OPPTS guideline has also been harmonized with OECD's Guideline 429 for LLNA, which was adopted in April 2002.

Although the LLNA has not been validated for determination of sensitization potency of chemical allergens and sensitization to metals has not been extensively studied , approaches for determination of quantitative assessment of sensitization induction thresholds have been proposed in the scientific literature using LLNA data ( Gerberick 2000, 2001; Griem et al., 2003). It may therefore be useful to consider data from the LLNA as a starting point for quantitation of induction thresholds, as dose response data can be generated from this assay, and a NOAEL can potentially be identified ( Felter et al., 2003). However, while the LLNA has been validated and APRIL 19, 2004 Page 11 of 28 accepted as a stand alone test method for assessment of dermal sensitization potential by the Interagency Coordinating Committe on the Validation of Alternative Test Methods ( ICCVAM ,

1999), the test itself has not been validated for its utility in dermal risk assessment ( Felter et al.,

2003). It has been proposed to group sensitizing chemicals according to relative potency as determined in the LLNA, and then compare these categories with the relative sensitization potency in humans on the basis of clinical experience and/ or prevalence of ACD in the population ( Griem et al, 2003). While a good correlation between LLNA results and sensitization potency in humans has been reported ( Griem et al., 2003), there is not yet general agreement on categories and ranges that should be used in classification of relative potency.

Induction Threshold Methods Gerberick ( 2000, 2001) proposed a methodology for determination of a ` sensitization reference dose' for sensitizers in consumer products. The lower boundary of the potency category for a sensitizing chemical is used as the starting point, with application of uncertainty factors for interindividual variability, product matrix effects, and use pattern. This approach was applied to the fragrance component cinnamic aldehyde and the preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone for which both LLNA and human sensitization potency were available ( Griem et al., 2003).

A use for the LLNA in quantitative risk assessment was investigated by Griem et al ( 2003). APRIL 19, 2004 Page 12 of 28 Identification of known human sensitizing chemicals for which both an EC3 value from an LLNA test and a NOAEL or LOAEL from human repeat insult patch tests ( HRIPT) or the human maximization test ( HMT) were available were identified. The reported concentrations were converted into specific and molar area doses. Comparison of the area doses of the LLNA and human test results indicated that sensitization thresholds were similar in mice and humans despite the fact that the area doses for different chemicals ranged over several orders of magnitude ( Griem et al., 2003). It was concluded from this analysis that the LLNA EC3 value is a useful measure of sensitizing potency in humans, and that the EC3 value can be used as a surrogate value for the human NOAEL which, in turn, can be used as a starting point in quantitative risk assessment.

Elicitation threshold Methods The above approaches describe methods that may be used to estimate thresholds for safe area doses that are considered protective against induction of sensitization. There are also proposed approaches for estimation of safe area doses that are considered protective against elicitation of sensitization in already sensitized persons. By inference, protection against elicitation would also be protective of induction, as thresholds for induction are generally higher than those for elicitation ( Kimber et al., 2003).

An approach to estimate an acceptable area dose for protection against elicitation is the concept of the Minimum Elicitation Threshold, or MET. This approach has been discussed in APRIL 19, 2004 Page 13 of 28 previous publications ( Nethercott et al., 1994; Zewdie, 1998; NJDEP, 1998; Basketter et al.,

2003) specifically with respect to hexavalent chromium. The concept behind the MET is that there is an ` elicitation threshold' below which no sensitization reaction is expected; thus, the MET is analogous to an RfD ( Horowitz and Finley, 1994). The estimation of an MET is usually based on the results of tests in previously sensitized individuals; thus, the MET is considered protective of elicitation reactions. However, there has not been an extensive discussion of the criteria for employing this concept for purposes of risk assessment. Nethercott ( 1994) calculated a value of 0.089 ug/ cm2 as a 10% MET ( i. e. the concentration at which 10% of the study group responded)

based on results of a human repeat insult patch test in 54 chromium sensitized volunteers and claimed that this value should be protective against ACD for hexavalent chromium in at least 99.99% of the population exposed to contaminated soil. Paustenbach ( 1992) estimated a 10%

threshold response of 54 parts per million for hexavalent chromium in soil, but no discussion of the relevance of the 10% response level was presented. Two states ( Massachusetts and New Jersey) have proposed soil cleanup standards based on an ACD endpoint using either the human patch test data of Nethercott ( 1994) or the human forearm water exposure data of Fowler ( 2000).

Griem et al. ( 2003) also proposed an approach for derivation of a safe area dose at which ACD would not be manifest in sensitized individuals. As several of the factors that influence induction of sensitization ( skin penetration, uptake by antigen presenting cells, metabolism) are also relevant for elicitation, it was postulated that a correlation between the induction potency and elicitation potency of a chemical could be established. However, comparison of induction and elicitiation APRIL 19, 2004 Page 14 of 28 area doses from limited data in humans did not show an obvious correlation. While induction threshold doses spanned five orders of magnitude, values for elicitation were mainly within one order of magnitude. Using the log transformation of the ratio of induction/ elicitation to elicitation, it was proposed that the ratio of the induction/ sensitization threshold could be predicted on the basis of an established sensitization ( induction) threshold. Examples of the derivation of safe area doses for three chemicals ( MCI/ MI, a preservative in many cosmetics and household products; cinnamic aldehyde, a fragrance and flavor ingredient; and nickel) were presented. For strong sensitizers such as MCI/ MI, it was demonstrated that the safe area doses for induction and elicitation were close together, while for weaker sensitizers such as nickel, the safe area doses for induction and elicitation were farther apart, consistent with the mathematical relationship of the ratio of induction/ elicitation threshold vs. sensitization threshold. That is, for lower potency sensitizers, a relatively high area dose may be needed to cause induction of sensitization, but elicitation may be possible with much lower area doses, while for a potent sensitizer, the area dose needed for induction is close to the area dose that will elicit the reaction in a sensitized individual.

Uncertainty After the appropriate level of concern has been identified ( e. g. NOAEL determination, for example), areas of uncertainty need to be considered in extrapolating the result to conditions relevant to the human exposure of interest. Areas of uncertainty that have been identified for dermal risk assessment include ( 1) interspecies variability/ susceptibility ( i. e. extrapolation from APRIL 19, 2004 Page 15 of 28 animals to humans); ( 2) inter individual variations in response within humans; ( 3) vehicle or product matrix effects; and ( 4) exposure considerations ( i. e., area of the body exposed, repeated exposures). Briefly, and as discussed in more detail by Felter et al. ( 2002) and Griem et al.

( 2003), the inter individual variation in response to induction and elicitation of dermal sensitization must be taken into account, as there may be differences in response based on age,

sex, and genetic factors, or health status of the skin. In addition, formulation of chemical allergens into product matrices that may result in an enhancement or inhibition of ACD must be considered in the risk assessment paradigm, as must also extrapolating from experimental conditions to realworld exposure conditions, i. e. site of the body exposed , effects of occlusion, and environmental conditions ( temperature, humidity, and repeated dermal exposures). For each of the 4 areas, a range from 1 10 has been suggested for uncertainty in each area.

Populations of Concern Approaches to estimating safe area doses for ACD have been proposed using EC3 values derived from the murine LLNA ( Gerberick and Robinson, 2000; Felter et al., 2003, and MET values from human repeat insult patch tests ( Nethercott et al., 1994; Basketter et al., 2001; Hansen et al.,

2003). Approaches using the results of murine LLNA data are intended to estimate area doses that are protective against induction of ACD, while use of the MET approach is intended to be protective against elicitation of ACD in sensitized persons. Griem et al. ( 2003) have also proposed an approach for calculation of safe area doses designed to be protective against both APRIL 19, 2004 Page 16 of 28 induction and elicitation of ACD through use of appropriate uncertainty factors applied to the results of murine LLNA or human patch test study results. This proposal is worth examining, as it has been acknowledged in the past for sensitizing chemicals such as nickel and hexavalent chromium that it is difficult to protect individuals who are already sensitized ( Felter et al., 2003;

USEPA, 1998).

In addition, consideration should be given to whether there are potentially susceptible subpopulations who may be more susceptible to the induction and/ or elicitation of ACD.

Paustenbach et al. ( 1992) and Felter et al. ( 2002) have discussed the issue of whether children are more or less at risk for development of ACD. Paustenbach et al. addressed this issue specifically for hexavalent chromium, and it was concluded that risk to children ages 3 to 8 is not likely to be greater than risk to adults as there is no evidence that repeated exposures to hexavalent chromium places a person at greater risk of sensitization. Felter et al. suggested that infants and children may actually be at lower risk for development of ACD based on data gathered from dinitrochlorobenzene and pentadecylcatechol ( poison ivy allergen). These views are somewhat counter to the opinion of Griem et al. ( 2003) who suggested a possible higher sensitizing potency of a chemical upon repeated exposures. This would make sense in the case of hexavalent chromium, as the significant irritancy of the chemical could lend itself to an increased sensitizing potency by allowing more chemical to penetrate the stratum corneum.

Case Study Hexavalent Chromium As noted in the 1998 IRIS Toxicological Review for hexavalent chromium ( USEPA, 1998) as APRIL 19, 2004 Page 17 of 28 well as in numerous publications, hexavalent chromium is one of the most common and potent contact sensitizers. Exposures to hexavalent chromium occur in a number of occupational settings including including chrome plating baths, chrome colors and dyes, cement, tanning agents, wood preservatives, anticorrosive agents, welding fumes, lubricating oils and greases,

cleaning materials, and textiles and furs ( USEPA, 2003). Non occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium have also been noted in household detergents ( Basketter et al., 2003; Stern et al., 1993) as well as in cement.

Elicitation thresholds in persons sensitized to hexavalent chromium have been described in the literature ( Nethercott, 1994; Fowler, 2000). However, there are no recent data on induction thresholds for hexavalent chromium. Some investigation has been performed on the question of induction thresholds in general, as it has been stated ( Marzulli and Maibach, 1996; Griem et al.,

2003) that repeated dermal contact over a longer time period may also result in a threshold for induction. Although more work is needed in this area, Griem ( 2003) proposed an uncertainty factor be applied for repeated dermal contact with chemical allergens, as there may be a higher sensitizing potency of a chemical upon repeated exposure.

The Antimicrobials Division of OPP is concerned with the risk from dermal exposure that may occur from dermal contact with hexavalent chromium on the surface of wood treated with a wood preservative product containing hexavalent chromium, as hexavalent chromium is known to be a potent dermal irritant and sensitizing agent. The Antimicrobials Division, using existing science APRIL 19, 2004 Page 18 of 28 policies in OPP, currently performs hazard and risk assessments for non cancer endpoints through selection of a level of concern ( e. g., a NOAEL or LOAEL value) and compares this level of concern to estimated or actual exposures to derive a Margin of Exposure. The Margin of Exposure is then weighed against the " acceptable" Margin of Exposure, which takes into account uncertainties in the risk assessment ( e. g., inerspecies differences in response, intraspecies differences in sensitivity).

Hazard Identification for hexavalent chromium Murine LLNA hazard data reported by Kimber et al. ( 1995) from five different laboratories reported EC3 values for hexavalent chromium using potassium dichromate as the test substance.

These data are shown below:

laboratory A B C D E Avg. US Avg country UK US UK US US area dose

g/ cm2 5.12 11.56 13.24 10.77 11.2 10.36 11.15 Several published studies ( Nethercott et al., 1994; Basketter et al., 2001; Hansen et al., 2003)

have reported elicitation thresholds in persons previously sensitized to chromium. In the study by Nethercott et al., a 10% MET of 0.089

g/ cm2 was reported from results of patch testing using 54 human volunteers known to be sensitized to hexavalent chromium. The lowest dose tested in this APRIL 19, 2004 Page 19 of 28 study, 0.018

g/ cm2, also showed evidence of elicitation in one subject.

Basketter et al. ( 2001) reported elicitation reactions to potassium dichromate in 17 volunteers giving fully informed consent using closed patch and open appliation techniques. Skin pre treated with 0.2% sodium lauryl sulfate showed reaction to potassium dichromate at 1 ppm, with a doseresponse evident at the higher concentrations. Using open application techniques, 3 of 15 volunteers reacted to a level of 5 ppm potassium dichromate. To protect those already sensitized to chromium as well as to prevent development of additional chromium sensitive subjects, a chromium contamination level of 1 ppm was suggested on the basis of this study.

Hansen et al. ( 2003) compared the 10% MET for both hexavalent and trivalent chromium in 18 volunteers known to have chromium allergy. The results of this study indicated a 10% MET of 0.03

g/ cm2 for hexavalent chromium and 0.18

g/ cm2 for trivalet chromium, and suggest that both trivalent and hexavalent chromium should be taken into consideration when characterizing chromium skin allergy.

The data reported above using human volunteers are from subjects previously sensitized to hexavalent chromium and give some indication of an elicitation threshold, while the LLNA data reported in Kimber et al. ( 1995) show induction thresholds in the murine LLNA test.

Estimation of ` safe' area doses for protection from hexavalent chromium ACD can be performed in both cases using published methdologies. For the LLNA study results, uncertainty factors for interspecies extrapolation, intraspecies variation, product matrix, and exposure considerations should be taken into account. For the interspecies uncertainty factor, Griem et al. ( 2003) APRIL 19, 2004 Page 20 of 28 proposed a factor of 3 based on comparison of human and murine data showing that sensitizing doses are within a factor of 3 of each other, and that skin penetration tends to be higher in rodents than in humans. An uncertainty factor of 10 is proposed for intraspecies variation in humans, as there are few data on induction thresholds in humans. A product matrix uncertainty factor of 10 is proposed for hexavalent chromium. The LLNA assay is performed using an acetone/ olive oil vehicle, while the wood preservative formulation containing hexavalent chromium is likely more complex and could affect the availability and potency of the allergen. An exposure uncertainty factor of 10 is proposed based on uncertainty regarding the repeated dermal exposure that could occur to the treated wood and how this would affect the potency of hexavalent chromium as a dermal sensitizer. The total uncertainty factor from this analysis is 3000 applied to the calculated area dose from the average of 5 LLNA assays to yield a ` sensitization reference dose.'

This is illustrated below:

laboratory A B C D E Avg. US Avg country UK US UK US US area dose

g/ cm2 5.12 11.56 13.24 10.77 11.2 10.36 11.15 interspecies extrapolation UF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 intraspecies variation UF 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 matrix UF 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 exposure UF 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 APRIL 19, 2004 Page 21 of 28 S RfD

g/ cm2 0.0017 0.0038 0.0044 0.0035 0.0037 0.0034 0.0038 The S RfD can then be compared to estimated or measured human exposure to determine if the Margin of Safety is adequate. If, as suggested by Griem et al. ( 2003) that the maximum uncertainty factor should be no greater than 1000, then the S RfD values shown above, using the maximum uncertainty factor of 1000, would be 0.005, 0.01, 0.013, 0.01, and 0.01

g/ cm2 respectively for the five studies, with an average U. S. value of 0.01

g/ cm2.

A similar approach can be applied to the MET values from the Nethercott et al., Hansen et al.,

and Basketter et al. studies. As the data are from human studies, the interspecies extrapolation factor could be reduced to 1. An intraspecies uncertainty factor of 3 is proposed based on the use of sensitized persons, as elicitation thresholds have been found to be less variable than induction thresholds. An uncertainty factor of 3 is also applied for the use of LOAEL values, as the studies were not designed for specific determination of a NOAEL. An uncertainty factor of 1 is proposed for exposure considerations, based on the use of a sensitized study group. The total uncertainty factor of 10 applied to the reported human LOAEL valuesof 0.018

g/ cm2 , 0.01

g/ cm2, and 0.03

g/ cm2, results in ` safe' area doses of 0.0018, 0.001, and 0.003

g/ cm2 for persons previously sensitized to hexavalent chromium.

Comparison of the values derived from the induction studies using the LLNA and the patch test data shows under the current scheme that induction and elicitation does for hexavalent chromium do not differ appreciably, consistent with the fact that hexavalent chromium is a potent sensitizer and that induction and elicitation doses will not differ widely, as discussed by Griem et APRIL 19, 2004 Page 22 of 28 al ( 2003). This factor could change from application of uncertainty factors of differing magnitude; a reasonable case has been presented using the available data.

Environmental Exposures Application of the experimental data to environmental exposures is also a significant aspect of the risk assessment, as for hexavalent chromium, there will be dermal contact not only with the treated wood product, but with soil in contact with or in proximity to the treated wood structure.

As the experimental hazard dose metric ( i. e., the area dose) for induction and/ or elicitation of dermal sensitization may differ according to the matrix of exposure, it is desirable to characterize as accurately as possible the influence of the exposure matrix variables on determination of an acceptable area dose level. For contact with a wood matrix into which a chemical allergen is incorporated, the Office of Pesticide Programs estimates a safe area dose from available scientific data and compares that level of concern to the estimated or measured level of exposure to calculate an acceptable Margin of Exposure. Variables that influence the calculation of the exposure to the chemical on the surface of wood include transfer efficiency of the chemical from the wood to the skin, number of dermal contact events, surface area of skin exposure, and level of the chemical on the surface of the wood. Approaches to assessing treated wood exposures have been considered recently by the FIFRA SAP in a December, 2003 meeting in which the SHEDS model was presented and considered as a probabilistic approach to assessing exposures to arsenic and chromium in treated wood, including children's exposures. APRIL 19, 2004 Page 23 of 28 For determination of an acceptable area dose from contact with a chemical in a soil matrix, many of the variables are similar to the wood matrix. However, other soil matrix properties may have a greater impact on the transfer of the chemical from the soil to the skin. Additional variables are taken into account in calculating skin contact dose, such as skin surface area of contact, soil adherence to skin, contact frequency ( important for determination of children's potential hazard and risk), bioavailability of the chemical in soil, physio chemical properties of the soil ( i. e.

moisture content, soil type), valence or complex state of the chemical, and chemical solubility in sweat. Guidance for determination of acceptable soil levels for Superfund cleanup sites is found at the following web address: http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ soil/ ssgmarch01. pdf. It is noted here that soil cleanup values estimated for dermal contact in the Superfund program are based upon systemic effects resulting from dermal exposures, although dermal sensitization effects should also be considered in the assessment.

Water also represents a matrix of exposure that is different than wood or soil, in that it represents a three dimensional matrix of contact ( i. e.

g/ cm3) vs. a two dimensional matrix of contact ( i. e.

g/ cm2). Activities such as showering represent exposure scenarios where potential dermal sensitization hazard may need to be characterized, but as with soil, other variables may influence the estimation of a safe area dose in this matrix. Thus, while the experimental hazard data for hexavalent chromium indicate that low levels are adequate to induce and/ or elicit sensitization, the actual concentration necessary for such reactions may differ according to the matrix in which the chromium is found. APRIL 19, 2004 Page 24 of 28 REFERENCES Basketter D., et al., ( 2001) Investigation of the Threshold for Allergic Reactivity to Chromium,

Contact Dermatitis, 2001, 44: 70 74.

Basketter DA, et al., ( 2001) Commentary Skin Sensitization, Vehicle Effects and the Local Lymph Node Assay, Food and Chemical Toxicology 39 ( 2001) 621 627.

Basketter DA, et al., ( 2003) Nickel, Chromium and Cobalt in Consumer Products: Revisiting Safe Levels in the New Millennium, Contact Dermatitis, 2003: 49: 1 7.

Dean, J. H et al. ( 2001): ICCVAM Evaluation of the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay. II.

Conclusions and Recommendations of an Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel. Regulatory Toxicol. Pharmacol. 34: 258 273. APRIL 19, 2004 Page 25 of 28 Felter SP, et al., ( 2002): A Review of the Scientific Basis for Uncertainty Factors for use in Quantitative Risk Assessment for the Induction of Allergic Contact Dermatitis, Contact Dermatitis, 2002, 47: 257 266.

Felter SA., et al., ( 2003): Application of the Risk Assessment Paradigm to the Induction of Allergic Contact Dermatitis, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 37 ( 2003) 1 10.

Gerberick, F., et al., ( 2000): A Skin Sensitization Risk Assessment Approach for of Contact Dermalitis Evaluation of New Ingredients and Products. American Journal of Contact Dermalitis, Vol. II, No. 2 ( June), 2000: pp. 65 73.

Griem P., et al., ( 2003): Proposal for a Risk Assessment Methodology for Skin Sensitization Based on Sensitization Potency Data, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 38 ( 2003) 269 290.

Hansen, M. B., Johansen, J. D., and Menne, T. ( 2003): Chromium Allergy: significance of both Cr( III) and Cr( VI). Contact Dernatitis 49: 206 212.

Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods ( ICCVAM)

( 1999). The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay: A Test Method for Assessing the ACD Potential of Chemicals/ Compounds. NIH publication 99 4494. National Institute of Environmental Health APRIL 19, 2004 Page 26 of 28 Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Kimber I., et al., ( 1995) An International Evaluation of the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay and Comparison of Modified Procedures. Toxicology 103 ( 1995) 63 73.

Kimber, I ( 1996): The Skin Immune System. In: Dermatotoxicology, 5th edition ( Marzulli and Maibach, eds.). Taylor and Francis, Washington D. C., pages 131 141.

Kimber I., et al., ( 2003) Classification of Contact Allergens According to Potency: Proposals.

Food and Chemical Toxicology 41 ( 2003) 1799 1908.

Marzulli, F. N and Maibach, H. I., eds. ( 1996) Dermatotoxicology, fifth edition. Taylor and Francis, Washington D. C., pages 143 146.

Nethercott J., et al., ( 1994) A Study of Chromium. Induced Allergic Contact Dermatitis With 54 Volunteers; Implications for Environmental Risk Assessment, Occup. Environ.

Med.. 1994; 51: 371 380.

NIOSH ( 2001): Occupational Dermatoses. A Program for Physicians. Available at:

http:// www. cdc. gov/ niosh/ ocderm. html APRIL 19, 2004 Page 27 of 28 NJDEP, 1998: Summary of the Basis and Background of the Soil Cleanup Criteria for Trivalent and Hexavalent Chromium. Available at: http:// www. nj. gov/ dep/ srp/ news/ 1998/ 9812_ 04. htm Robinson MK., et al., ( 2000) The importance of Exposure Estimation in the Assessment of Skin Sensitization Risk, Contact Dermatitis, 2000, 42: 251 259.

Sailstad, D. M. ( 2003): Allergic Contact Hypersensitivity: Mechanisms and Methods. In:

Alternative Toxicological Methods. Harry Salem and Sidney Katz, eds. , CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Pages 193 205.

Scott AE, et al., ( 2002) Insight into the Quantitative relationship Between Sensitization and challenge for Allergic Contact Dermatitis Reactions. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 183, 66 70 ( 2002).

Stern AH., et al., ( 1993) Risk Assessment of the Allergic Dermatitis Potential of Environmental Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 40: 613

641, 1993.

USEPA, 1998: Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium. In Support of the Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS). Available on the Internet at www. epa. gov/ iris/ toxreviews APRIL 19, 2004 Page 28 of 28 USEPA, 2001: Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for Superfund sites.

Available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ soil/ ssgmarch01. pdf Zewdie, T. ( 1998): Evaluation of the Risk Assessment Methodologies Based on the Hexavalent Chromium [ Cr( VI)] Elicited Allergic Contact Dermatitis ( ACD) in Sensitized Population and MADEP's Recommendations. Available at: http:// www. state. ma. us/ dep/ ors/ files/ crviderm. doc


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 37582]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14851-000]

White Pine Waterpower, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On July 13, 2017, White Pine Waterpower, LLC, filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the White Pine Pumped
Storage Project to be located near the town of Ely in White Pine,
Nevada. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The applicant proposes to study two alternative closed-loop pumped
storage alternatives at the site: One sized to 250 megawatts (MW) and
the other to 500 MW. The 500-MW alternative would consist of the
following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 52 acres
and a storage capacity of 2,400 acre-feet at a surface elevation of
approximately 8,530 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through
construction of a new earth or rock-filled dam; (2) a new lower
reservoir with a surface area of 40 acres and a total storage capacity
of 2,400 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 6,290 feet msl; (3) 10,600
feet of tunnel and penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs;
(5) a new underground powerhouse containing three turbine-generator
units; (6) a new 1.5 mile transmission line connecting the powerhouse
to a nearby electric grid interconnection, (7) appurtenant facilities.
The 500-MW alternative would have an annual generation of 502,717
megawatt-hours (MWh).
    For the 250-MW alternative, the new upper and lower reservoirs
would be sized to have half of the storage of the 500-MW alternative
(1,200 acre-feet), reducing the dam size needed to impound the
reservoirs. The alternative would require 11,700 feet of tunnel and
penstock and have 2 pump-generating units. The 250-MW alternative would
require the same transmission line and would have an estimated annual
generation of 547,500 MWh.
    Applicant Contact: Matthew Shapiro, CEO, Gridflex Energy, LLC, 1210
W. Franklin Street, Suite 2, Boise, ID 83702.
    FERC Contact: Jim Fargo; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14851-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14851) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 7, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16960 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13943-13944]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0251]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0038

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0038,
Plan Approval and Records for Tank Vessels, Passenger Vessels, Cargo
and Miscellaneous Vessels, Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Nautical
School Vessels and Oceanographic Research Vessels--46 CFR Subchapters
D, H, I, I-A, R and U; without change. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0251] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents. In response to your comments, we
may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for
the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the

ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2019-0251 ], and must
be received by June 7, 2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Plan Approval and Records for Tank Vessels, Passenger
Vessels, Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels, Mobile Offshore Drilling
Units, Nautical School Vessels and Oceanographic Research Vessels--46
CFR Subchapters D, H, I, I-A, R and U.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0038.
    Summary: This collection requires the shipyard, designer or
manufacturer for the construction of a vessel to submit plans,
technical information and operating manuals to the Coast Guard.
    Need: Under 46 U.S.C. 3301 and 3306, the Coast Guard is responsible
for enforcing regulations promoting the safety of life and property in
marine transportation. The Coast Guard uses this information to ensure
that a vessel meets the applicable standards for construction,
arrangement and equipment under 46 CFR Subchapters D, H, I, I-A, R and
U.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Shipyards, designers, and manufacturers of certain
vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 6,671
hours to 3,673 hours a year, due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of responses.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: April 2, 2019.
James D. Roppel,
Chief, Office of Information Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2019-06770 Filed 4-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 64569]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25188]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-11007; 34-93573; File No. 265-28]

Investor Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice
that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit
written statements to the Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 2, 2021 from
10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received
on or before December 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be conducted by remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F St NE, Washington, DC 20549. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

    [ssquf] Use the Commission's internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
    [ssquf] Send an email message to [email protected]. Please
include File No. 265-28 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

    [ssquf] Send paper statements to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method.
    Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel,
Office of the Investor Advocate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public,
except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an
administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the
contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: opening remarks, announcement
of new officers, and announcement regarding a disclosure subcommittee;
welcome remarks; approval of previous meeting minutes; a panel
discussion regarding crypto and digital assets: helping to ensure
investor protection and market integrity in the face of new
technologies; a panel discussion regarding the SEC's potential role in
addressing elder financial abuse issues; a discussion of a
recommendation regarding individual retirement accounts; subcommittee
reports; and a non-public administrative session.

    Dated: November 15, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25188 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29672]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM13-2-000]

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the proposed rule (RM13-
2-000) which was published in the Federal Register of Friday, February
1, 2013 (78 FR 7524). The regulations revised the pro forma Small
Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and pro forma Small
Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) originally set forth in
Order No. 2006.

DATES: Effective on [June 3, 2013].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie Kerr (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Monica Taba (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Elizabeth Arnold (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Errata Notice

    On January 17, 2013, the Commission issued an order in the above-
referenced docket. Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and
Procedures, 142 FERC ] 61,049 (2013). The order is revised as follows:
    The fourth sentence of paragraph 45 should read, ``This requirement
was included in Order No. 2006 \62\ but was not made clear in the pro
forma SGIP.''
    Footnote 62 should read, ``Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,180 at P 140.''
    In FR Doc. 2013-01366 appearing on page 7523 in the Federal
Register of Friday, February 1, 2013, the same corrections are made:
    1. On page 7531, the fourth sentence of paragraph 45 should read,
``This requirement was included in Order No. 2006 \62\ but was not made
clear in the pro forma SGIP.''
    2. On page 7531, Footnote 62 should read, ``Order No. 2006, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 140.''

    Dated: April 25, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12079 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P