[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29837-29838]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13684]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 1-Z, SEC File No. 270-659, OMB Control No. 3235-0723

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 1-Z (17 CFR 239.94) is used to report terminated or completed
offerings or to suspend the duty to file ongoing reports under
Regulation A, an exemption from registration under the Securities Act
of 1933 (15 U.S.C 77a et seq.). The purpose of the Form 1-Z is to
collect empirical data for the Commission on offerings conducted under
Regulation A that have terminated or completed, to indicate to the
Commission that issuers that have conducted Tier 2 offering are
suspending their duty to file reports under Regulation A and to provide
such information to the investing public. We estimate that
approximately 17 issuers file Form 1-Z annually. We estimate that Form
1-Z takes approximately 1.5 hours to prepare. We estimate that 100% of
the 1.5 hours per response is prepared by the company for a total
annual burden of 26 hours (1.5 hours per response x 17 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information

collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13684 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 68186]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1945]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Winneshiek County, Iowa
and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations,
which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood
Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone
designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as
proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports
for Winneshiek County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective December 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1945 to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 1, 2019, FEMA published a proposed
notice at 84 FR 37661, proposing flood hazard determinations for
Winneshiek County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the
proposed notice.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-26889 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3607]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0026]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Bridge, also known as the St Johns
RR Bridge, across the Willamette River, mile 6.9, at Portland, OR. The
deviation is necessary to facilitate track maintenance involving
welding on the movable section of the bridge. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed position during maintenance activities.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. on January 30, 2012
through 3 p.m. February 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0026 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0026 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway
has requested to not open the BNSF Railroad Lift Bridge for vessels to
facilitate track maintenance. The bridge, also known as the St Johns RR
Bridge, crosses the Willamette River at mile 6.9 and provides 54 feet
of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0, while in the
closed position. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may
continue to transit beneath the bridge during this closure period.
Under normal operations this bridge opens on signal as required by 33
CFR 117.5. The deviation period is from 9 a.m. on January 30, 2012
through 3 p.m. February 1, 2012. This deviation allows the lift span of
the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 6.9, to
remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic
from 9 a.m. through 3 p.m. daily from January 30, 2012 through February
1, 2012. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all
other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River
includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small
pleasure craft. Mariners have been notified and will be kept informed
of the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to
Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate.
Due to the nature of work being performed the draw span will be unable
to open for maritime traffic during this maintenance period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Randall D. Overton,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-1439 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


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

EPA Registration Division contact: [P.V. Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

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

TEMPLATE:

[United Phosphorus, Inc.]

[IN-10626]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-10626) from [United Phosphorus, Inc.], [630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402 King of Prussia, PA  19406] requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 1,1'-iminodiproan-2-ol (diisopropanolamine; DIPA; CAS No. 110-97-4) under 40 CFR 180.910 when used as an inert ingredient (neutralizer or stabilizer) in a pesticide formulation at no more than 10% by weight of the formulation.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information is generally not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	2. Analytical method. [The petition proposes to establish exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance and no analytical method is generally required for establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information is generally not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

B. Toxicological Profile

DIPA is widely used as an emulsifier, stabilizer, neutralizer, surfactant, and chemical intermediate.  The major uses of DIPA are as a scavenger for carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide in the purification of natural gas, and as a pH adjuster or as an emulsifier or viscosity modifier in personal care products (cosmetics, tanning solutions, soaps, detergents).  DIPA belongs to the general class of alkanolamines which typically exhibit low acute oral and dermal toxicity, but also display eye and skin irritancy.  EPA has already reviewed and granted 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.920 tolerance exemptions for other similar alkanolamines.  DIPA is approved for use in non-food use pesticide formulations without limitations.

Some toxicity data for DIPA has been considered by EPA previously when establishing the exemption from requirement of a tolerance for TIPA (triisopropanolamine; 40 CFR 180.910).  TIPA and Monoisopropanolamine (MIPA) data were considered in some cases as surrogate data for DIPA.

	1. Acute toxicity.  [DIPA and its surrogate TIPA have low acute oral and dermal toxicity.  The oral and dermal LD50s for DIPA are >2000 mg/kg and >8000 mg/kg, respectively.  The oral and dermal LD50s for TIPA are both >5000 mg/kg. Both are dermal and eye irritants.  Neither DIPA nor TIPA are dermal sensitizers in the guinea pig.  Based on the acute LD50 values, no acute reference dose is needed for risk assessment. ]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Multiple genotoxicity studies have been conducted on DIPA and its surrogates MIPA and TIPA.  Four in vitro genotoxicity studies are available on DIPA:  a gene mutation test in CHO cells, two Ames Salmonella assays and a chromosomal aberration test using rat hepatocytes.  All four studies were negative.  MIPA was tested in two Ames Salmonella studies.  It was clearly negative in one of the studies, but positive in TA1535 in the second study.  The positive finding in TA1535 was not reproducible in two out of four assays.  An Ames Salmonella assay, in vitro chromosomal aberration using rat hepatocytes, a HGPRT gene mutation assay using Chinese hamster ovary cells and a micronucleus test in the mouse were conducted on TIPA.  TIPA was negative in all four assays.  DIPA, MIPA and TIPA have no or very little genotoxicity potential.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [A reproduction study was not available on DIPA.  In a one-generation rat reproduction study, TIPA administered up to a dose of 609 mg/kg/day in males and 700 mg/kg/day in females did not results in any parental, reproductive or offspring toxicity.  TIPA was not a reproductive toxicant under the conditions of this study.

A developmental toxicity study was conducted on DIPA in the rat at dose levels of 0, 100, 300 or 1000 mg/kg.  The NOAEL was 1000 mg/kg for both maternal and developmental toxicity.   A developmental toxicity study was also conducted on the surrogate TIPA in the rat.  The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 400 mg/kg based on decreased body weight gain and food consumption.  The NOAEL for developmental toxicity was 1000 mg/kg, the highest dose tested.  Neither DIPA nor TIPA are developmental toxicants.

Given the low developmental toxicity and the lack of developmental effects, an FQPA Safety Factor of 1X is proposed for DIPA.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Subchronic toxicity studies have been conducted on DIPA and its surrogates MIPA and TIPA.  Fourteen-day and 90-day repeated dose toxicity studies have been conducted on DIPA in rats.  The NOAEL in the 14-day study was 600 mg/kg/day based on slightly reduced food and water consumption, decreased body weight gain in males and increased kidney weights observed at 1200 mg/kg/day.  Based on effects on clinical chemistry parameters at 500 and 1000 mg/kg/day, the NOAEL in the 90-day study for males is 100 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL for females was 500 mg/kg/day based on higher urine specific gravity observed at 1000 mg/kg/day.  The NAOEL of 100 mg/kg/day from the 90-day repeat dose study is used to propose the chronic reference dose for risk assessment.

Fourteen-day (rat) and 90-day (rat and dog) repeated dose toxicity studies have been conducted on TIPA.  The NOAEL in the 14-day study was 100 mg/kg/day based mild effects on glucose levels and effects on kidney weights, which were not accompanied by any microscopic findings in the kidney, observed at 300 mg/kg/day in males.  The NOAEL in the 90-day rat study was 609/700 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.  There were no treatment-related effects observed in the 90-day dog study.  The NOEL was the highest dose tested, 7500 ppm equivalent to 272 mg/kg/day for male dogs and 288 mg/kg/day for female dogs

In a 28-day dermal toxicity study in the rat, DIPA was tested at dose levels of 0, 100, 500 or 750 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL for systemic effects was the highest dose tested or 750 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL for dermal effects was 100 mg/kg/day based on very slight to slight erythema observed at the test site at 500 mg/kg/day.  In a 28-day dermal toxicity study in the rat, the systemic NOAEL was the highest dose of TIPA tested, 3000 mg/kg/day which higher than the limit dose for studies of this type.  Neither DIPA nor TIPA was not dermally toxic systemically after repeated dosing.

A two-week inhalation study was conducted on MIPA in rats and mice.  No effects were observed up to a concentration of 75 ppm.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [Limited carcinogenicity studies were conducted on DIPA and TIPA.  Only one dietary level (1%) of DIPA and TIPA (2%) was tested.  DIPA and TIPA did not increase the incidence of any tumor type under the conditions of these studies.  TIPA is not listed by ACGIH, IARC, NTP, or CA Prop 65.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [In the rat, DIPA was rapidly eliminated after i.v. administration and found primarily in the urine unchanged.  Dermally applied DIPA was slowly absorbed with a total absorption of 12% and was found unchanged in the urine, the primary route of excretion.  Orally administered TIPA was rapidly and extensively absorbed; a minimum of 83%.  Virtually all was rapidly excreted primarily as unchanged TIPA in the urine.]

	7. Endocrine disruption. [There is no information available that links DIPA or its surrogates MIPA and TIPA to direct effects on the endocrine system.  TIPA is not compatible with direct endocrine activity on the basis of structural activity relationships.  In addition, there is no histopathological or behavioral evidence of an endocrine function in any toxicity evaluations of TIPA or its close analogue (DIPA) conducted in laboratory animals.  The TIPA one-generation toxicity study conducted in rats included pre-mating, mating period, gestation, lactational and post-lactation dosing.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Based on the low acute toxicity, no acute reference dose is established.  Based on the 90-day studies for DIPA the following is proposed: chronic oral cRfD (chronic reference dose) and chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD) is 1 mg/kg/day based on the NOAEL of 100 mg/kg bw/day assuming a standard 100X uncertainty factor for inter- and intra-species variability and an FQPA safety factor of 1X.]

      i. Food. [An assessment based on the EPA Inert's Branch dietary exposure model I-DEEM could be conducted.  I-DEEM uses a screening level dietary assessment of 57 of the most "significant" active ingredients as surrogates for inerts within the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID(TM), Version 2.14).  Exposure from food, animal commodities and drinking water are included.  It is expected that based on the proposed cRfD, exposure to DIPA from food, animal commodities and drinking water would be well below the proposed cPAD for the general US population and all subpopulations.]

      ii. Drinking water. [Drinking water estimates have been included in the I-DEEM model.]

      2. Non-dietary exposure. [No exposure to DIPA is expected through residential pesticidal products.  Some exposure to DIPA from non-pesticide uses may occur via coatings of paper, personal care products, lubricants, pigments, or plastics.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[For the purposes of this tolerance action, it is not assumed that DIPA has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]

E. Safety Determination

      1. U.S. population. [For the general population, the estimated exposure is expected to be well below the cRfD.]

      2. Infants and children. [No increased sensitivity is noted for the young; an FQPA Safety Factor of 1X is proposed based on reproductive and developmental toxicity results for DIPA and the related compounds TIPA and MIPA as well as registration decisions for TIPA-herbicide salts which indicate no developmental or reproduction concerns.  Estimated exposure for children is expected to be well below the proposed cPAD.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There are no known CODEX or international tolerances or tolerance exemptions established for DIPA.]


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41712-41715]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17558]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0450; FRL-9997-63]

Proposed Low-Priority Substance Designation Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability and Request for
Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As required under section 6(b) of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) and implementing regulations, EPA is proposing to designate
20 chemical substances as Low-Priority Substances for which risk
evaluation is not warranted at this time. This document provides a
summary of the approach used by EPA to support the proposed
designations, the proposed designation for each of the chemical
substances, and instructions on how to access the chemical-specific
information, analysis and basis used by EPA to make the proposed
designation for each chemical substance. EPA is providing a 90-day
comment period during which interested persons may provide comments on
the proposed designations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following methods to submit comments: For
comments not related to a specific chemical substance, including
comments on EPA's Approach Document for Screening Hazard Information
for Low-Priority Substances Under TSCA (July 2019), direct your
comments to docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0450.
For comments on one or more of the 20 chemical substances, use the
applicable chemical specific docket ID number(s) identified in Unit
IV.B.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information about Low-Priority Substances contact:
Lauren Sweet, Chemistry, Economics and Sustainable Strategies Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency (Mailcode
7406M), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to entities that currently or may manufacture (including
import) a chemical substance regulated under TSCA (e.g., entities
identified under North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes 325 and 324110). The action may also be of interest to
chemical processors, distributors in commerce, and users; non-profit
organizations in the environmental and public health sectors; state and
local government agencies; and members of the public. Because interest
in this notice may be broad, the Agency has not attempted to describe
all the specific entities and corresponding NAICS codes for entities
that may be interested in or affected by this action.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing to designate 20 chemical substances as Low-
Priority Substances pursuant to section 6(b) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2605(b). This document includes a summary
of the approach used by EPA to support the proposed designations, the
proposed designation for each of the chemical substances, and
instructions on how to access the chemical-specific information,
analysis and basis used by EPA to make the proposed designation for
each chemical substance. EPA is providing a 90-day comment period
during which interested persons may submit comments on the proposed
designation.

C. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    EPA is proposing to designate as Low-Priority Substances 20
chemical substances for which EPA initiated the prioritization process
required by TSCA section 6(b) on March 21, 2019 (Ref. 1). EPA is
providing a 90-day comment period during which the public may submit
comments on EPA's proposed designations of Low-Priority Substances, as
required by TSCA section 6(b)(1)(C)(ii).

D. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This document is issued pursuant to TSCA section 6(b)(1).

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    This document identifies 20 chemical substances for proposed
designation as Low-Priority Substances. This document does not
establish any requirements on persons or entities outside of the
Agency. No incremental impacts are therefore anticipated, and
consequently EPA did not estimate potential incremental impacts for
this action.

F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

    TSCA, as amended in 2016 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety
for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 114-182), at section 6(b)(1),
requires EPA to prioritize chemical substances for designation. As
required by TSCA section 6(b) and described in 40 CFR 702.7, on March
21, 2019 (Ref. 1), EPA initiated the prioritization process for 20
chemical substances identified as candidates for Low-Priority Substance
designation.
    Under TSCA section 6(b)(1)(B) and implementing regulations (40 CFR
702.3), a Low-Priority Substance is defined as a chemical substance
that the Administrator concludes, based on information sufficient to
establish, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors,
does not meet the standard for a High-Priority Substance. A High-
Priority Substance is defined as a chemical substance that the
Administrator concludes, without consideration of costs or other non-
risk factors, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of
exposure under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to
a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as
relevant by the Administrator. A chemical substance designated as Low-
Priority indicates a risk evaluation is not warranted at that time.
    This document is intended to fulfill the requirement in TSCA
section 6(b)(1)(C)(ii) and 40 CFR 702.9 that the Administrator propose
the designation of 20 chemical substances as Low-Priority Substances
for risk evaluation after conducting a screening review, as required by
TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 702.9(a). EPA generally used
reasonably available information to screen the candidate chemical
substances against the following criteria and considerations (40 CFR
702.9(a)):
     The chemical substance's hazard and exposure potential;
     the chemical substance's persistence and bioaccumulation;
     potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations;
     storage of the chemical substance near significant sources
of drinking water;
     the chemical substance's conditions of use or significant
changes in conditions of use;
     the chemical substance's production volume or significant
changes in production volume; and
     other risk-based criteria that EPA determines to be
relevant to the designation of the chemical substance's priority for
risk evaluation.
    As described in 40 CFR 702.9(b), in conducting the screening review
during the prioritization process, EPA considered sources of
information relevant to the screening-review criteria as outlined in
the statute (TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A)) and implementing regulations (40
CFR 702.9(a)) and consistent with the scientific standards of TSCA
section 26(h). All hazard and fate information for these proposed low-
priority substances was collected and evaluated in accordance with the
methodology laid out in the Approach Document for Screening Hazard
Information for Low-Priority Substances Under TSCA (July 2019) (Ref.
2). Information gathered according to this approach document was
included in each chemical substance's screening review, which are
provided in Unit IV.B. In addition, as required by 40 CFR 702.9, EPA
considered the hazard and exposure potential of the chemical substances
and did not consider cost or other non-risk factors in making a
proposed priority designation.

III. Information and Comments Received

    The initiation of the prioritization process (docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2019-0131) included a 90-day comment period during which interested
persons were able to submit relevant information on those chemical
substances identified as candidates for Low-Priority Substance
designation. With the exception of comments providing information for
specific chemical substances being proposed as Low-Priority Substances,
EPA will respond to comments received in an upcoming notice.
    During the 90-day comment period, commenters submitted information
on four chemical substances proposed for Low-Priority designation:
     Propanol, [(1-methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)bis(oxy)]bis- (CAS RN
24800-44-0)
     Propanol, 1(or 2)-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)-, acetate (CAS
RN 88917-22-0)
     Propanol, [2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]- (CAS RN
55934-93-5)
     Propanol, oxybis- (CAS RN 25265-71-8)
    The submitted information is addressed in the respective dossiers
(see Unit IV.B.).

IV. Chemical Substances for Which EPA Is Proposing a Low-Priority
Substance Designation for Prioritization

A. Approach for Gathering Information, Conducting Analysis and Forming
the Basis To Support the Proposed Low-Priority Substance Designation

    EPA used reasonably available information, including public
comments received on specific chemical substances during the 90-day
comment period following initiation of the prioritization process for
Low-Priority Substances, to screen the candidate chemical substances
against the criteria and considerations in TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A) and
40 CFR 702.9 (see Unit III.).
    EPA developed a document to identify the information, analysis and
basis used to support the proposed designations as a Low-Priority
Substance for each chemical substance. These documents are available in
the docket of each of the chemical substances with a proposed
designation as a Low-Priority Substance. The proposed designations are
presented in Unit IV.B., along with the docket references.
    Each chemical-specific document for the chemical substances
proposed for designation as a Low-Priority Substance includes the
information, analysis and basis for the proposed designation. In the
absence of experimental data for a given endpoint, EPA integrated
information using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). Each of the
screening reviews includes an overview of the considerations in TSCA
section 6(b)(1)(A) and the regulatory section addressing the criteria
and considerations at 40 CFR 702.9:
    1. Hazard potential. EPA considered reasonably available
information to screen potential hazards for each chemical substance.
EPA surveyed the reasonably available information for potential human
health and environmental hazards for a range of toxicological
endpoints. EPA benchmarked these data against low-concern thresholds.
These low-concern endpoints and thresholds are based on EPA OPPT's New
Chemicals Program, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals classifications, OPPT's criteria for high
production volume chemical categorization, EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs categories, and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer's classifications.
    2. Exposure potential. EPA gathered reasonably available
information on physical-chemical properties, production volumes, and
uses to

determine potential routes of exposure. Using this information, and
adhering to methodologies outlined in each chemical-specific dossier,
EPA screened for potential environmental, general population, and
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations exposure for each
chemical substance:
     For environmental exposures, EPA considered the conditions
of use and fate properties of each chemical substance to anticipate its
presence in different environmental media.
     For general population exposure, EPA considered releases
from certain conditions of use, such as manufacturing, that may result
in general population exposures via drinking water ingestion and/or
inhalation from air releases.
     For exposures to potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations, EPA identified subpopulations such as workers,
consumers, pregnant women, and children using Chemical Data Reporting
(CDR) information and other reasonably available information specified
in each chemical substance's screening review. The CDR rule requires
manufacturers to report information on the chemical substances they
produce domestically or import into the U.S. CDR includes information
on the manufacturing, processing, and use of chemical substances. For
worker or occupational exposure, EPA identified the conditions of use
that are likely to result in workers exposures, such as manufacturing,
processing, industrial use, and commercial use. For consumer and
children's exposures, EPA identified certain conditions of use that may
result in the chemical substance's exposure to consumers and children.
    3. Persistence and bioaccumulation. EPA considered reasonably
available information on the chemical substance and interpreted
persistence and bioaccumulation potential based on best available
science. In the screening reviews, EPA presents a summary of the
environmental fate characteristics of each chemical substance.
    4. Potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. In the
screening reviews, EPA considered reasonably available information to
identify potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. At this
stage, EPA analyzed information regarding children, infants, pregnant
women, consumers, and workers:
     For children and infants, EPA evaluated the chemical
substance's use in products and articles regulated under TSCA and
intended for children using CDR information and other reasonably
available information on uses. In the screening reviews, EPA presents
information regarding those commercial and consumer uses where the
chemical substance was used in products intended, known, or reasonably
foreseen for use by children and infants.
     For pregnant women, EPA examined reasonably available
information and considered whether the chemical substance could
potentially pose reproductive or developmental adverse effects.
     For workers, EPA identified the potential for occupational
exposures to workers based on the conditions of use of each chemical
substance, using CDR information and other reasonably available
information.
     For consumers, EPA identified the consumer uses of the
chemical substance and the potential for consumer exposure under those
conditions of use, using CDR information and other reasonably available
information.
    5. Storage near significant sources of drinking water. EPA
evaluated elements of risk associated with the chemical substance's
storage near surface and underground sources of drinking water. EPA
considered possible adverse effects that could result from an
accidental one-time-high-volume release of a substance, and from a
slower release over time. For its analysis, EPA relied in large part on
the chemical substance's potential human health hazards, including to
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, and environmental
fate properties as they relate to the potential for the chemical
substance to enter a hypothetical drinking water source. Among the
reasons that EPA chose this approach for analysis is that data on
storage of the chemicals being proposed as Low-Priority Substances are
not tracked under TSCA and are not generally available. EPA also
investigated whether the chemical substance was monitored for and
detected in a range of environmental media under other federal statutes
and regulations. EPA assumed that if a chemical substance is regulated
under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations or the Clean
Water Act, or if its release is subject to reporting requirements under
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (ECPRA), the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) or the Clean Air Act (CAA), there is a potential human health
hazard from a potential release near a significant source of drinking
water.
    6. Conditions of use or significant changes in conditions of use.
EPA evaluated conditions of use or significant changes in conditions of
use of the chemical substance by reviewing CDR data and supplementing
that data from a broad range of other sources, including information
from other governments, and information from publicly available
internet sources to develop a comprehensive list of intended, known,
and reasonably foreseen conditions of use within the TSCA regulatory
scope. To analyze the potential for concern based on the possibility of
change in known uses, EPA relied in large part on the chemical
substance's potential human health and environmental hazards.
    7. Production volume or significant changes in production volume.
EPA considered current volume or significant changes in volume of the
chemical substance using manufacturers' (including importers') reported
information under the CDR rule under TSCA section 8(a). EPA assembled
information from 1986 through 2016 on the production volume reported
under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR) and CDR.
    8. Other risk-based criteria that EPA determined to be relevant to
the designation of the chemical substance's priority. EPA did not find
other risk-based criteria relevant to the proposed designations of the
candidate chemical substances as Low-Priority Substances.

B. Proposed Designation as Low-Priority Substances for Risk Evaluation

    EPA is proposing to designate the following 20 chemical substances
as Low-Priority Substances for which risk evaluation is not warranted
at this time. The proposed designations are based on the conclusion
that the chemical substance satisfies the definition of Low-Priority
Substance. Under TSCA section 6(b)(1)(B) and implementing regulations
(40 CFR 702.3), a Low-Priority Substance is described as a chemical
substance that the Administrator concludes does not meet the standard
for designation as a high-priority substance, based on information
sufficient to establish that conclusion, without consideration of costs
or other non-risk factors (Section 6(b)(1)(B)).
    1. 1-Butanol, 3-methoxy-, 1-acetate, CAS RN 4435-53-4, Docket
number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0106. The information, analysis and basis used
to support the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in
the docket for this chemical substance.
    2. D-gluco-Heptonic acid, sodium salt (1:1), (2.xi.)-, CAS RN
31138-65-5, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0107. The information,
analysis and basis used to support the proposed designation as Low-
Priority Substance

are in the docket for this chemical substance.
    3. D-Gluconic acid, CAS RN 526-95-4, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2019-0108. The information, analysis and basis used to support the
proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in the docket for
this chemical substance.
    4. D-Gluconic acid, calcium salt (2:1), CAS RN 299-28-5, Docket
number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0109. The information, analysis and basis used
to support the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in
the docket for this chemical substance.
    5. D-Gluconic acid, .delta.-lactone, CAS RN 90-80-2, Docket number:
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0110. The information, analysis and basis used to
support the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in the
docket for this chemical substance.
    6. D-Gluconic acid, potassium salt (1:1), CAS RN 299-27-4, Docket
number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0111. The information, analysis and basis used
to support the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in
the docket for this chemical substance.
    7. D-Gluconic acid, sodium salt (1:1), CAS RN 527-07-1, Docket
number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0112. The information, analysis and basis used
to support the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in
the docket for this chemical substance.
    8. Decanedioic acid, 1,10-dibutyl ester, CAS RN 109-43-3, Docket
number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0113. The information, analysis and basis used
to support the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in
the docket for this chemical substance.
    9. 1-Docosanol, CAS RN 661-19-8, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-
0114. The information, analysis and basis used to support the proposed
designation as Low-Priority Substance are in the docket for this
chemical substance.
    10. 1-Eicosanol, CAS RN 629-96-9, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-
0115. The information, analysis and basis used to support the proposed
designation as Low-Priority Substance are in the docket for this
chemical substance.
    11. 1,2-Hexanediol, CAS RN 6920-22-5, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2019-0116. The information, analysis and basis used to support the
proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in the docket for
this chemical substance.
    12. 1-Octadecanol, CAS RN 112-92-5, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2019-0117. The information, analysis and basis used to support the
proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in the docket for
this chemical substance.
    13. Propanol, [2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]-, CAS RN
55934-93-5, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0118. The information,
analysis and basis used to support the proposed designation as Low-
Priority Substance are in the docket for this chemical substance.
    14. Propanedioic acid, 1,3-diethyl ester, CAS RN 105-53-3, Docket
number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0119. The information, analysis and basis used
to support the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in
the docket for this chemical substance.
    15. Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dimethyl ester, CAS RN 108-59-8, Docket
number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0120. The information, analysis and basis used
to support the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in
the docket for this chemical substance.
    16. Propanol, 1(or 2)-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)-, acetate, CAS RN
88917-22-0, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0121. The information,
analysis and basis used to support the proposed designation as Low-
Priority Substance are in the docket for this chemical substance.
    17. Propanol, [(1-methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)bis(oxy)]bis-, CAS RN
24800-44-0, Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0122. The information,
analysis and basis used to support the proposed designation as Low-
Priority Substance are in the docket for this chemical substance.
    18. 2-Propanol, 1,1'-oxybis-, CAS RN 110-98-5, Docket number: EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2019-0123. The information, analysis and basis used to support
the proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in the docket
for this chemical substance.
    19. Propanol, oxybis-, CAS RN 25265-71-8, Docket number: EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2019-0124. The information, analysis and basis used to support the
proposed designation as Low-Priority Substance are in the docket for
this chemical substance.
    20. Tetracosane, 2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyl-, CAS RN 111-01-3,
Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0125. The information, analysis and
basis used to support the proposed designation as Low-Priority
Substance are in the docket for this chemical substance.

V. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Initiation of Prioritization Under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). Notice. Federal Register. (84 FR 10491, March
21, 2019) (FRL-9991-06).
2. EPA. Approach Document for Screening Hazard Information for Low-
Priority Substances Under TSCA. August 2019. EPA Document ID No.
740B19008. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Washington,
DC.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: August 9, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-17558 Filed 8-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78718-78720]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0277]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt twenty-one individuals
from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 19, 2011. The exemptions
expire on December 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room
W64-224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or 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., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On October 17, 2011, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from twenty-one individuals and
requested comments from the public (76 FR 64165). The public comment
period closed on November 16, 2011 and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the twenty-one applicants
and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control''

(49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).

    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible.
    The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) Federal Register notice in
conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777) Federal Register
notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These twenty-one applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 26
years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years.
In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has
demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her
diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management,
and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other
disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications.
Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the October 17, 2011, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comment

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
    An anonymous individual indicated that he was not convinced that
Mr. Randy Voss was qualified to receive a vision exemption.
    In response to this comment, FMCSA's exemption process supports
drivers with ITDM who seek to operate in interstate commerce. In
addition, FMSCA relies on the expert medical opinion of the
endocrinologist and the medical examiner, who are required to analyze
individual ability to control and manage the diabetic condition,
including the individual ability and willingness of the driver to
monitor blood glucose level on an ongoing basis. FMCSA will grant
exemptions only to those applicants who meet the specific conditions
and comply with all the requirements of the exemption.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the twenty-one exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts, Norman Billie (Utah); Jeffry L. Bromby (California);
Glenn W. Burke (New York); David P. Charest (New Hampshire); Donald N.
Ellis (New Jersey); Timothy J. Flynn (Iowa); Michael T. Heath
(Georgia); Edward L. Keith (Illinois); Thomas J. Kelley (Virginia);
Jackie L. Lane (Texas); Michael J. Miller (Illinois); Jeremy R.
Pendergrass (Utah); Cory J. Rickerl (Arizona); Phillip D. Ross (Texas);
Dennis R. Scheel (South Dakota); Andrew P. Shirk (Michigan); Jerry L.
Smit (Minnesota); Charles R. Tomassi (New York) and Randy J. Voss
(Illinois) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to
the conditions listed under ``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid

for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 12, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-32441 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9467-9468]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC20-36-000.
    Applicants: Tropico, LLC, Nicolis, LLC, Gulf Coast Solar Center I,
LLC, Gulf Coast Solar Center II, LLC, Gulf Coast Solar Center III, LLC,
Avalon Solar Partners, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Tropico, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20200211-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1355-008.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Errata to January 30, 2020 Notification of Change in
Status of Southern California Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 2/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20200211-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1933-011.
    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Interstate Power
and Light Company.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-470-004.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revisions in Compliance with the
Order No. 841 Order on Compliance to be effective 12/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-969-000.
    Applicants: Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Amended & Restated
Facilities Agreement and Request for Waivers to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-970-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Rate Schedules
FERC No. 265 and No. 266 to be effective 9/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-971-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-02-11_SA 3421 MEC-
Heartland Divide Wind II GIA (J583) to be effective 1/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20200211-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-972-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-02-11_SA 3422 ITC-Three
Waters Wind Farm GIA (J720) to be effective 1/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20200211-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-973-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Fourth Quarter 2019
Capital Budget Report.
    Filed Date: 2/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20200211-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-974-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ICSA,
SA No. 3838; Queue No. X4-048/Y2-089/AA1-077 to be effective 1/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20200211-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: RD20-3-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Application of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for approval of proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-4.
    Filed Date: 2/7/20.
    Accession Number: 20200207-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 11, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03187 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P