[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61007-61010]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2023-0063]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Approval of Information
Collection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments
on our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval for an information collection in accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection is
necessary for administration of the Reconnecting Communities (RCP) and
Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) Discretionary Grant Programs and
funding opportunities. Together, these programs are known as
``Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods (RCN)'' in the combined
NOFO. RCN provides federal financial assistance for surface
transportation infrastructure projects. Through RCP, this includes
removing, retrofitting, or mitigating transportation facilities such as
highways and rail lines that create barriers to community connectivity
including to mobility, access, or economic development. Through NAE,
this includes the RCP eligibilities, with the further ability to reduce
burdens such as GHG emissions, hot spot areas, gaps in tree canopy
coverage, and other natural environment concerns.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W-12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: To ensure proper docketing of your comment, please
include the agency name and docket number [DOT-OST-2023-0063] at the
beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this
notice, please contact the Office of the Secretary via email at
[email protected] or contact Andrew Emanuele at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. A TDD is available for
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New Collection. OMB number will be issued
after the collection is approved.
    Title: Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program and Neighborhood
Access and Equity Program (Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods
(RCN) Discretionary Grants.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: New Information Collection Request (ICR).
    Background: The Office of the Secretary (``OST'') within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) provides financial assistance for
surface transportation infrastructure projects--including removing,
retrofitting, or mitigating transportation facilities such as highways
and rail lines that create barriers to community connectivity including
to mobility, access, or economic development. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, November 15, 2021) (Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, or BIL) provided funds to the Department to invest
in planning and capital construction grants to reduce transportation
barriers: the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, found under
section 11509 of division A. The Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-
169, August 16, 2022) (IRA) provided funds to the Department for the
NAE to invest in planning and construction grants to improve the
walkability, safety, and provide affordable access: the Neighborhood
Access & Equity grant program, found at 23 U.S.C. 177: To help
streamline the process for applicants, the Department has combined the
applications for the RCP and NAE programs into the RCN common
application.
    The DOT combined these two programs into one single Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to provide a more efficient application
process for project sponsors. While they remain separate programs for
the purposes of award, the programs share many common characteristics.
Because of these shared characteristics, it is possible for many
projects to be eligible and considered for multiple programs using a
single application.
    This notice seeks comments on the proposed information collection,
which will collect information necessary to support the ongoing
oversight and administration of previous awards, a Letter of Intent
screening tool, the evaluation and selection of new applications, the
funding agreement negotiation stage for new awards, and the evaluation
of the programs. The reporting requirements for the program is as
follows:
    Prior to applying, a project sponsor may fill out a ``Letter of
Intent'' screening tool to help determine eligibility for one or both
programs within the RCN NOFO or help direct them to a more appropriate
grant program.
    To be considered to receive an RCN grant, a project sponsor must
submit an application to DOT containing a project narrative, as
detailed in the NOFO. The project narrative should include the
information necessary for the Department to determine that the project
satisfies eligibility requirements as warranted by law.
    After the award announcement the Department will send out a
voluntary survey to all applicants and webinar participants to help
evaluate the application process.
    Following the announcement of a funding award, the recipient and
DOT will negotiate and sign a funding agreement with awardees. In the
agreement, the recipient must describe the project that DOT agreed to
fund, which is the project that was described in the RCN application or
a reduced-scope version of that project. The agreement also includes
project schedule milestones, a budget, and project-related climate
change, equity, and workforce planning and policies.
    During the project monitoring stage, grantees will submit reports
on the financial condition of the project and the project's progress.
Grantees will submit progress and monitoring reports to the Government
on a quarterly basis until completion of the project. The progress
reports will include an SF-425, Federal Financial Report, and other
information determined by the administering DOT Operating
Administration. This information will be used to monitor grantees' use
of Federal funds, ensuring accountability and financial transparency in
the RCN programs.
    For Post Construction Reporting, the DOT will evaluate the program
for recipients of capital construction grants and include the outcomes
and impacts of the highway removal project, The report will document
any changes in the overall level of mobility, congestion, access, and
safety in the project area, and environmental impacts and economic
development opportunities in the project area. Performance reporting
continues for several years after project construction is completed in
which DOT will not provide grant funding specifically for performance
reporting.
    For the purposes of estimating the information collection burden
below for new applicants and awardees, the Department is assuming that
for each year 2023-2025, the Department will review approximately 1,000
applications and negotiate 100 funding agreements. Quarterly project

monitoring will also exist for the 45 RCP projects awarded in FY22. For
a detailed breakdown of burden hours, please see Table 1.

                                                                                Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Year 1 (2023)                          Year 2 (2024)                          Year 3 (2025)
                          Respondent                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Total hrs.
                                                                     #           Hrs.        Freq.          #           Hrs.        Freq.          #           Hrs.        Freq.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter of Intent..............................................          600          0.5            1  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          300
Applicants....................................................        1,000          100            1  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      100,000
Survey........................................................          700          0.5            1  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          350
Awardee Funding Agreements....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          100            6            1  ...........  ...........  ...........          600
Quarterly Monitoring (2022)...................................           45            5            4  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter of Intent..............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          600          0.5            1  ...........  ...........  ...........          300
Applicants....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,000          100            1  ...........  ...........  ...........      100,000
Survey........................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          700          0.5            1  ...........  ...........  ...........          350
Awardee Funding Agreements....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          100            6            1          600
Quarterly Monitoring (2022 & 2023)............................  ...........  ...........  ...........          145            5            4  ...........  ...........  ...........        2,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter of Intent..............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          250          0.5            1          125
Applicants....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          435          100            1       43,500
Survey........................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          300          0.5            1          150
Awardee Funding Agreements....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Quarterly Monitoring (2022, 2023, 2024).......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          245            5            4        4,900
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand Total...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      254,975
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's estimated burden for this information collection
is the following:

For Letter of Intent Screening Tool

    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 600 in Year 1 and 2.
DOT expects 250 in Year 3 with depletion of NAE funding by then,
reducing those using the tool.
    Frequency: Once.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: .5 hours.

For New Applications

    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 1,000 in Year 1 and
2. 435 are expected for Year 3 with depletion of NAE funding.
    Frequency: Once.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours for each new
Application;

For Program Evaluation (Survey)

    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 700 in Year 1 and 2.
300 in Year 3.
    Frequency: Once.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 0.5 hours for each
application;

For Funding Agreements

    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 100 in Year 1 and 2.
    Frequency: Once.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 6 hours for each new Funding
Agreement;

For Quarterly Project Monitoring

    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 45 in Year 1. 100 in
Year 2 and Year 3.
    Frequency: Quarterly.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 5 hours for each request for
Quarterly Progress and Monitoring Report;

For Post-Construction Project Monitoring

    Because RCN expect no projects to complete construction by 2025,
post-construction monitoring hours and cost are not computed in this
document.

Estimated Total 3-Year Burden on Respondents: 254,975 Hours

 Letter of Intent [825 hrs]
 New Applicants [242,000 hrs]
 Survey [850 hrs]
 New Awardee Funding Agreements [1,200 hrs]
 Prior Awardee Quarterly Project Monitoring [8,700]

    The following is detailed information and instructions regarding
the specific reporting requirements for each report identified above:

Letter of Intent Screening Stage

    To help applicants determine their eligiblity for the RCN combined
grant opportunity, OST will develop and use the ``Letter of Intent''
tool to help applicants determine eligiblity for the programs or what
application materials they may be missing. The Letter of Intent
screening tool will save potential applicants hundreds of hours of
application development time if the project has a ``fatal flaw'' that
would render it ineligible. The Letter of Intent tool will consist of
10-20 questions and takes .5 hrs to fill out.

Application Stage

    To be considered to receive a RCN grant, a project sponsor must
apply to DOT containing a project narrative, as detailed in the NOFO.
The project narrative should include the information necessary for the
Department to determine that the project satisfies eligibility
requirements.
    Applications must be submitted through www.valideval.com.
Instructions for submitting Planning or Capital applications can be
found at https://usg.valideval.com/teams/rcn_planning/signup or https://usg.valideval.com/teams/rcn_captialconstruction/signup, respectively.
The application must

include the Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance),
Standard Form 424C (Budget Information for Construction Programs),
cover page, and the Project Narrative.
    The application should include a table of contents, maps, and
graphics, as appropriate, to make the information easier to review. The
Department recommends that the application be prepared with standard
formatting preferences (i.e., a single-spaced document, using a
standard 12-point font such as Times New Roman, with 1-inch margins).
The only substantive portions that may exceed the page limit are
documents supporting assertions or conclusions made in the project
narrative. If possible, website links to supporting documentation
should be provided rather than copies of these supporting materials. If
supporting documents are submitted, applicants should clearly identify
within the project narrative the relevant portion of the project
narrative that each supporting document supports. At the applicant's
discretion, relevant materials provided previously to a modal
administration in support of a different USDOT financial assistance
program may be referenced and described as unchanged.
    OST estimates that it takes approximately 100 person-hours to
compile an application package for a RCN application. Since OST expects
to receive 1000 applications per funding round, the total hours
required are estimated to be 50,00 hours (100 hours x 1,000
applications = 100,000 hours) on a one-time basis, per funding round.

Program Evaluation Stage (Survey)

    To understand the RCN grant process from the applicant's point of
view, OST plans to send out a survey after all award decisions have
been made. This survey will go to all applicants, both successful and
unsuccessful, and will take approximately .5 hours to complete.

Funding Agreement Stage

    DOT enters a funding agreement with each recipient. In the
agreement, the recipient describes the project that DOT agreed to fund,
which is typically the project that was described in the RCN
application or a reduced-scope version of that project. The agreement
also includes a project schedule, budget, and project related climate
change and equity planning and policies.
    OST estimates that it takes approximately 6 person-hours to respond
to provide the information necessary for funding agreements. Based on
previous rounds of RCN awards, OST estimates that there will likely be
100 agreements negotiated per additional funding round. The total hours
required are estimated to be 600 (6 hours x 100 agreements = 600 hours)
on a one-time basis, per funding round.

Project Monitoring Stage

    OST requires each recipient to submit quarterly reports during the
project to ensure the proper and timely expenditure of federal funds
under the grant.
    The requirements comply with 2 CFR part 200 and are restated in the
funding agreement. During the project monitoring stage, the grantee
will complete Quarterly Progress Reports to allow DOT to monitor the
project budget and schedule.
    OST estimates that it takes approximately 5 person-hours to develop
and submit a quarterly progress report. OST awarded 45 recipients and
awardees in 2022. OST expects approximately 100 projects to be awarded
per funding round.

Post Construction Monitoring Stage

    For Post Construction Reporting, the DOT will evaluate the program
for recipients of capital construction grants and include the outcomes
and impacts of the highway removal project, The report will document
any changes in the overall level of mobility, congestion, access, and
safety in the project area, and environmental impacts and economic
development opportunities in the project area. Because RCN expect no
projects to complete construction by 2025, post-construction monitoring
hours and cost are not computed in this document.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31st, 2023.
John Augustine,
Director of the Office of Infrastructure Finance and Innovation, Office
of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-19175 Filed 9-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. It seems the FDA took many years to come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the public 180 days to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request.


[Federal Register: February 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 29)]
[Notices]
[Page 7602-7604]
[DOCID:fr13fe06-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53226; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-92]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Cancellation Fees

February 3, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 30, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Phlx. On January 27, 2006, the Phlx submitted an amendment to the
proposed rule change (``Amendment No. 1'').\3\ The Phlx has filed the
proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the Phlx under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \4\ and
Rule 19b-

4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, Phlx clarified the manner in which the
fee will be assessed and made technical changes to the rule text.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to adopt a cancellation fee of $1.10 per order to
be assessed on member organizations for each cancelled AUTOM-delivered
\6\ order in excess of the number of orders executed on the Exchange by
that member organization in a given month. The proposed cancellation
fee will not be assessed in a month in which fewer than 500 AUTOM-
delivered orders are cancelled. Simple cancels and cancel-replacement
orders are the types of orders that will be counted when calculating
the number of AUTOM-delivered orders.\7\ The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site (http://www.phlx.com
), at the principal office of the Phlx, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ AUTOM is the Exchange's electronic order delivery, routing,
execution and reporting system, which provides for the automatic
entry and routing of equity option and index option orders to the
Exchange trading floor. See Exchange Rules 1014(b)(ii) and 1080.
    \7\ A cancel-replacement order is a contingency order consisting
of two or more parts which require the immediate cancellation of a
previously received order prior to the replacement of a new order
with new terms and conditions. If the previously placed order is
already filled partially or in its entirety the replacement order is
automatically canceled or reduced by such number. For example, if an
contracts get filled, leaving a remaining balance of 80 contracts,
and a cancel-replacement order is received with instructions to
the replacement order would be for 40 contracts with a price of
$1.80 (because 20 contracts were already executed at the price of
$1.70). See Exchange Rule 1066(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of assessing $1.10 per order for each cancelled AUTOM-
delivered order in excess of the number of orders that the executing
member organization executes on the Exchange in a given month is to
discourage excessive use of cancellations.\8\ The Exchange believes
this proposed fee is necessary given the often disproportionate number
of order cancellations received relative to order executions and the
increased costs associated with the practice of canceling orders
immediately after they are routed electronically to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that a cancellation fee should help to deal with the
various operational problems and costs resulting from this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As represented by the Phlx, this proposal does not cover
orders delivered through the Floor Broker Management System
(``FBMS'') because, at this time, FBMS orders are entered and
cancelled manually from the floor and do not create the capacity
issues that are created in connection with excessive electronically-
delivered cancelled orders, as described above. See Exchange Rule
1063. Telephone conversation between Edith Hallahan, Deputy General
Counsel, and Cynthia K. Hoekstra, Director, Phlx, and Nancy J.
Sanow, Assistant Director, and Ira L. Brandriss, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, February 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has been designated
as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder. Accordingly, the proposal will take
effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of
the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \13\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
December 30, 2005 and the effective date of the amendment is January
27, 2006. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as
amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on January 27, 2006, the date on
which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2005-92 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-92. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the

Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2005-92 and should be submitted on or before March 6, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1961 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 54080]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2275-000]

Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 29, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19329 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


   	 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

     OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Date: 	August 29, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	THIABENDAZOLE:  Final Threshold of Regulation Decision to
Support 			Proposed New Use as a Seed Treatment for Dry Pea.

		Petition No: PP#1E6323.  D343139.

FROM:	Donna S. Davis, Chemist

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Michael S. Metzger, Chief

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

		Christina Swartz, Chief

		Registration Action Branch 2

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Susan Stanton

		Barbara Madden

		Risk Integration, Minor Use, Emergency Response Branch

	            Registration Division (7505P)

Attached please find the final documentation to support a Threshold of
Regulation Decision for the proposed new use for thiabendazole as a seed
treatment for dry pea.  This memorandum supersedes the HED review of
June 7, 2007 entitled THIABENDAZOLE:  Revised Threshold of Regulation
Decision to Support Proposed New Use as a Seed Treatment for Dry Pea.
(D340418, D. Davis).

1.0	Executive Summary

The Agency Threshold of Regulation Policy states that a use may be below
the threshold of regulation if the following two conditions are met.
First, using a reliable and appropriately sensitive analytical method to
measure residues in the commodity, no resides are detected in the
commodity under the expected conditions of use.  Secondly, the estimated
potential risk of any theoretically possible residues in food is not of
concern.

HED concludes that there are not likely to be detectable residues of
thiabendazole or its regulated metabolite, benzimidazole in/on dry pea
grown from treated seed, or in/on rotational crops as a result of use
under the conditions specified in this petition.

HED has determined that there are no effects seen in the toxicity
database that would be attributable to a single exposure of
thiabendazole; therefore, an acute dietary risk assessment is not
required for this chemical.

The chronic dietary risk assessment conducted supports the TOR policy
requirement that the use of thiabendazole as a seed treatment in/on dry
pea poses minimal risk since the chronic risks were significantly below
the TOR policy threshold of 0.1% of the chronic population adjusted
dose.

Thiabendazole is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis”.
HED is currently regulating chronic dietary risk with a chronic RfD that
reflects a dose level below dose levels at which thyroid hormone balance
is impacted and consequently is also being protective of potential
carcinogenic effects.

Regulatory Recommendations

The following label revisions should be addressed as part of the
regulatory action taken on this petition.

The petitioner must amend the label for the 30% FlC to include the
restriction “Do not feed vines or hay grown from treated seed to
livestock.”

The draft labeling contains a use on chick peas at 0.32 lb ai/100 lb
seed.  No data have been provided to support that use.  The petitioner
must either remove that use from the label or provide residue data
reflecting that use rate prior to registration of the higher application
rate on chick peas.

Provided the label revisions noted above are made, and further, provided
that there are no risk issues identified in the forthcoming occupational
risk assessment, HED concludes that the requested use of thiabendazole
as a seed treatment for use on dry pea is below the threshold of
regulation.  Therefore; while HED has determined that this is a food
use, consistent with the TOR policy, a tolerance is not required.

2.0	Background

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Thiabendazole [2-(4-thiazolyl) benzimidazole] is a
systemic benzimidazole fungicide used to control fruit and vegetable
diseases such as mold, rot, blight and stain.

The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), on behalf of the
Agricultural Experiment Stations of CA and ID and the U.S.A. Dry Pea and
Lentil Council has proposed, in PP#1E6323, the establishment of
permanent tolerances for residues of the fungicide thiabendazole
[2-(4-thiazolyl) benzimidazole], in/on “Peas (dry)” at 0.05 ppm
resulting from the use as a seed treatment.

In June of 2001, HED completed a human health risk assessment for the
active ingredient, thiabendazole for the Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) document.

In its review of this Section 3 request, HED has identified the proposed
seed treatment use of thiabendazole in/on dry pea as a use which may
meet the criteria developed under the Agency’s Threshold of Regulation
policy for a food use which does not require a tolerance.  In support of
that regulatory approach, this memorandum documents the likelihood of
detectable residues and the dietary risk likely to result from the
subject use of thiabendazole.

3.0 	Threshold of Regulation Policy

In the Federal Register of October 27, 1999 (64 FR 57881), the EPA
announced its Threshold of Regulation (TOR) Policy.  This policy
recommended factors to consider and procedures to use when determining
whether a use of a pesticide in a location and manner that has the
possibility of resulting in residues in food is below the threshold of
regulation, that is, does not need a tolerance.  The policy stated that
a use may be below the threshold of regulation if the following two
conditions are met.  First, using a reliable and appropriately sensitive
analytical method to measure residues in the commodity, no resides are
detected in the commodity under the expected conditions of use.
Secondly, the estimated potential risk of any theoretically possible
residues in food is not of concern.

The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has developed a draft Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) for the implementation of the Threshold of
Regulation Policy.  That SOP provides additional guidance on determining
if a food use might fall under the scope of the TOR policy.
Additionally, the implementation guidance directs HED to conduct dietary
risk assessments to determine if the subject food use poses minimal
risk.  The SOP defines minimal risk as acute and chronic dietary risks
which are equal to, or less than 0.1% of both the acute and chronic
population adjusted doses.

  TC \l1 "2.0	Ingredient Profile 4.0	“No Detectable Residues”
Determination

Thiabendazole.  Petition for the Establishment of a Permanent Tolerance
for Use on Dry Pea.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.
PP#1E6323.   D. Davis, 10/11/06, D315435

Proposed Use

IR-4 is requesting establishment of a tolerance for residues of
thiabendazole in/on dry pea to support the use of thiabendazole as a
single seed treatment application of the 30% flowable concentrate (FlC)
formulation at 0.075 lbs ai/100 lbs seed.  The proposed use directions
for dry pea are summarized in Table 4.1, below.

Table 4.1  Summary of Directions for Use of Thiabendazole on Dry Pea.

Applic. Timing, Type, and Equip.	Formulation

[EPA Reg. No.]	Applic. Rate 	Max. No. Applic. per Season	Max. Seasonal
Applic. Rate	PHI

(days)	Use Directions and Limitations

Dry pea (including field pea), pigeon pea, chickpea and lentil

Seed application	30% FlC

[7501-134]	0.075 lb ai/100 lb seed	1	0.075 lb ai/100 lb seed	Not
applicable	Applications are to be made as a spray mist or slurry
treatment maintained under constant agitation.  Treated seed is to be
planted as late in the spring as possible.

The proposed label states that treated seed must be colored with an
approved dye, cannot be used for food, feed, or oil purposes, and must
bear the following labeling:  “This seed is treated with Thiabendazole
at the manufacturer’s recommended rate.  Not for human or animal
consumption.  Do not use treated seed for food, feed, or oil
purposes.”  The product is not to be tank mixed with any pesticide
unless adequate physical compatibility and phytotoxicity tests have been
completed and proved to be satisfactory.  No rotational crop
restrictions are specified.

The submitted data reflect residues of thiabendazole in/on dry pea seed
following seed treatment according to the proposed use pattern.

The proposed use on dry pea includes field pea.  The petitioner must
amend the label for the 30% FlC to include the restriction “Do not
feed vines or hay grown from treated seed to livestock.  Additionally,
the draft labeling contains a use on chick peas at 0.32 lb ai/100 lb
seed.  No data have been provided to support that use.  The petitioner
must either remove that use from the label or provide residue data
reflecting that use rate prior to registration of the higher application
rate on chick peas.

Residue Chemistry Data

Crop Field Trial DER for Dry Pea.  MRID 454282-01, D. Davis,
45428201.der

IR-4 submitted field trial data for thiabendazole on dry pea.  A total
of five field trials were conducted in Zone 11 (2 trials in ID and 3
trials in WA) during the 1996 growing season.  Thiabendazole (30% FlC
formulation) was formulated with water and seed dye and applied to dry
pea seed at a seed treatment facility, at a nominal rate of 0.075 lb
ai/100 lb seed.  Treated seed was planted within 10 days of seed
treatment, and samples of dry pea were collected from the field trial
sites at maturity, 83-90 days after planting.

Samples of dry pea were analyzed for residues of thiabendazole per se
using an HPLC/FLD method.  The lower limit of the method validation
(LLMV) was 0.05 ppm; the LOD was not reported, however sufficient sample
chromatograms were provided to allow the reviewer to estimate the method
limit of detection (LOD) at <0.02 ppm.  This method was adequately
validated and determined appropriate for use as a data collection method
based on acceptable concurrent recovery data.

The maximum storage interval for dry pea samples from harvest to
analysis was 856 days (28.2 months).  To support sample storage
conditions and intervals, the petitioner conducted a concurrent storage
stability study which indicated that residues of thiabendazole in/on dry
pea were stable for up to 857 days of frozen storage.

Duplicate samples were analyzed for residues of thiabendazole at each of
the five field trial locations.  Residues of thiabendazole were less
than the method LOD of 0.02 ppm in all ten field trial samples.

No data were provided on residues of benzimidazole, a regulated
metabolite of thiabendazole in/on dry pea grown from treated seed.
However, HED notes that in three diverse crops, wheat, soybean and sugar
beets, residues of benzimidazole were consistently less than residues of
the parent compound, thiabendazole.  Since the proposed use is for a
seed treatment application, and since residues of parent compound were
below the limit of detection, HED concludes that residues of
benzimidazole are not likely to be detectable in dried peas grown from
thiabendazole treated seed.

Although no data were submitted reflecting residues of thiabendazole
in/on field pea vine and forage, these data will not be required if the
petitioner revises the proposed use pattern to include a restriction
against the feeding of pea vines and hay to livestock.

Residues in the Primary Crop

HED concludes that the analytical method used to determine residues of
thiabendazole is sufficiently sensitive and has been adequately
validated for the purpose of making a threshold of regulation
determination.  Based on the data summarized above, HED concludes that
there are not likely to be detectable residues of thiabendazole or its
regulated metabolite, benzimidazole in/on dry pea grown from seed
treated under the proposed use conditions stated in the subject
petition.

Processed Commodities

The TOR implementation SOP directs HED to determine if there are likely
to be residues in processed commodities derived from the subject raw
agricultural commodity (RAC).  Since there are no processed commodities
associated with dry pea in which residues could concentrate, detectable
residues are not expected in processed commodities.

Rotational Crop Residues

The TOR SOP directs HED to determine if there are likely to be
detectable residues in rotational crops as a result of the proposed use.
 Given that this use is for a seed treatment as opposed to a soil-type
application, and further given that there are no detectable residues in
the primary crop grown from treated seed, HED concludes that it is
unlikely that there will be detectable residues of thiabendazole and its
regulated metabolite, benzimidazole in/on rotational crops as a result
of the requested seed treatment use in/on dry pea.

Conclusion

HED concludes that there are not likely to be detectable residues of
thiabendazole or its regulated metabolite, benzimidazole in/on dry pea
grown from treated seed, or from rotational crops as a result of use
under the conditions specified in this petition.  Therefore; HED
concludes that the proposed use of thiabendazole as a seed treatment
satisfies the first condition that there be no detectable residues in
order to be regulated under the TOR policy.

5.0	Dietary Endpoints

Revised Acute Dietary Endpoint

THIABENDAZOLE – Revised Acute Dietary Endpoint Selection; TXR 0054506;
1/23/07; D. Davis

On October 23, 2006, the thiabendazole risk assessment team met with HED
senior leadership to reevaluate the existing toxicology database with
respect to the acute dietary endpoints selected for risk assessment.
The senior leadership team considered the previous report of the HIARC
(7/21/1999, P. Gaunt) as well as study DERs and concluded that,
consistent with current HED policy, reduced fetal weights/decreased
maternal body weights were not effects that were likely to occur after a
single dose of a pesticide; therefore, these endpoints were not
appropriate for acute dietary risk assessments for the general
population or for females 13+.  The senior leadership group reviewed the
toxicology database to determine if there were endpoints appropriate for
acute risk assessment.  The group gave careful consideration to the
reproductive and developmental effects noted in the database and in
literature citations; however, concluded that those effects were only
observed at very high doses and were not appropriate for risk assessment
at the exposures expected for thiabendazole.

The senior leadership group concluded that there was no endpoint in the
toxicology database that was attributable to a single dose of
thiabendazole, and that an acute risk assessment was not required for
this chemical.  This finding supersedes the endpoint selection decisions
made at the June 1 and June 17, 1999 HIARC meetings documented in the P.
Gaunt memorandum dated 7/21/06 with respect to acute dietary risk
assessments.

Chronic Dietary Endpoint

The chronic dietary endpoint decisions made at the June 1 and June 17,
1999 HIARC meetings documented in the P. Gaunt memorandum dated 7/21/06
and used in the most recent thiabendazole risk assessment of June 2001
remain unchanged.

Cancer

Thiabendazole is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis”.
HED is currently regulating chronic dietary risk with a chronic RfD that
reflects a dose level below dose levels at which thyroid hormone balance
is impacted and consequently is also being protective of potential
carcinogenic effects.  A separate risk assessment for cancer is not
required.

FQPA SF

As noted in the June 2001 risk assessment, the FQPA safety factor for
thiabendazole was reduced to 1X.  The toxicology database for
thiabendazole is considered complete.  Further, the data submitted to
the Agency, as well as those from published literature, demonstrate no
increased susceptibility in rats, rabbits, or mice to in utero and/or
early postnatal exposure to thiabendazole.  In the prenatal
developmental toxicity studies in rats, rabbits, and mice and in the
two-generations reproduction study in rats, developmental effects in the
fetuses or neonates occurred at or above doses that caused maternal or
parental toxicity.  A developmental neurotoxicity study with
thiabendazole is not required.  Finally, there are no residual
uncertainties in the exposure data that would result in an underestimate
of risk.

Endpoint Summary for TOR Determination

Thiabendazole toxicological doses and endpoints for dietary risk
assessment purposes are summarized in Table 5.1, below.

Table 5.1.  Summary of Thiabendazole Dietary Endpoints

Exposure Scenario	Point of Departure	Uncertainty/

FQPA Factor	RfD, PAD, Level of Concern	Study and Toxic Effects

Acute Dietary

(general population including females 13 – 49 years)	No effect
attributable to a single dose seen in the database

Chronic Dietary	NOAEL =

10 mg/kg/day	UFA = 10

UFH = 10	cRfD =

0.1 mg/kg/day

cPAD =

0.1 mg/kg/day	2-Year Feed/chronic

Carcinogenicity in the Rat

LOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gains and liver
hypertrophy

Cancer	Classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses
that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis”

6.0	Dietary Risk

Thiabendazole Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments to Support a
Threshold of Regulation Decision for the Use of Thiabendazole as a Seed
Treatment on Dry Pea.  D339855, D. Davis

As recommended by the draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the
implementation of the Threshold of Regulation Policy, dietary risk
assessments should demonstrate that the use poses minimal risk, a level
defined in the SOP as risks less than 0.1% of both the acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD).

Acute Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment

HED has determined that there are no effects seen in the toxicity
database that would be attributable to a single exposure of
thiabendazole; therefore, an acute dietary risk assessment is not needed
for this chemical.

Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment

EM-FCID™,Version 2.03 which incorporates consumption data from
USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII),
1994-1996 and 1998.

As recommended by the TOR SOP, only residues of thiabendazole in/on dry
pea were included in the analyses.  A chronic dietary assessment was
conducted that included residues of thiabendazole on dry pea at ½ the
limit of detection (LOD), which is 0.01 ppm.

Dietary exposure and risks from the proposed use of thiabendazole as a
seed treatment in/on dry pea are summarized in Table 6.1, below.

Assuming a theoretical potential residue of 0.01 ppm in/on dry pea with
100% crop treated resulted in an exposure value of “0.000000” for
the general population and for all subpopulations of concern.  The
estimated chronic risk for the U.S. population and all subpopulations of
concern is significantly below the TOR maximum risk level of 0.1% of the
cPAD.

Cancer Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment

Thiabendazole has been classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis”.
HED is currently regulating chronic dietary risk with a chronic RfD that
reflects a dose level below dose levels at which thyroid hormone balance
is impacted and consequently is also being protective of potential
carcinogenic effects.  Therefore, a cancer dietary assessment was not
performed.

Table 6.1.  Summary of Dietary (Food Only) Exposure and Risk for
Thiabendazole

Population Subgroup	Acute Dietary

(95th Percentile)	Chronic Dietary	Cancer

	Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD*	Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)	% cPAD*	Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)	Risk

General U.S. Population	No acute risk	0.000000	<0.01	Not required

All Infants (< 1 year old)

0.000000	<0.01	N/A	N/A

Children 1-2 years old

0.000000	<0.01

Children 3-5 years old

0.000000	<0.01

Children 6-12 years old

0.000000	<0.01

Youth 13-19 years old

0.000000	<0.01

Adults 20-49 years old

0.000000	<0.01

Adults 50+ years old

0.000000	<0.01

Females 13-49 years old

0.000000	<0.01

Conclusions

The chronic dietary risk assessment shows that the use of thiabendazole
as a seed treatment in/on dry pea poses minimal risk, since the chronic
risks were significantly below 0.1% of the chronic population adjusted
dose.

7.0	Occupational Exposure and Risk

Occupational Exposure and Risk will be addressed in a separate
forthcoming memorandum.

8.0	Regulatory Recommendations

The Threshold of Regulation decision presented in this document pertains
to dry pea (including field pea), pigeon pea, chickpea, and lentil.  The
commodity definition in for regulatory purposes is “pea, dry, pigeon
pea, chickpea, lentil”.

The following label revisions should be addressed as part of the
regulatory action taken on this petition.

The petitioner must amend the label for the 30% FlC to include the
restriction “Do not feed vines or hay grown from treated seed to
livestock.”

The draft labeling contains a use on chick peas at 0.32 lb ai/100 lb
seed.  No data have been provided to support that use.  The petitioner
must either remove that use from the label or provide residue data
reflecting that use rate prior to registration of the higher application
rate on chick peas.

Provided the label revisions noted above are made, and further, provided
that there are no risk issues identified in the forthcoming occupational
risk assessment, HED concludes that the requested use of thiabendazole
as a seed treatment for use on dry pea is below the level of regulatory
concern.  Therefore; while HED has determined that this is a food use,
consistent with the TOR policy, a tolerance is not required.

Thiabendazole             Revised Threshold of Regulation Decision to
Support New Use on Dry Pea               D343139

-

¥

·

Á

à

ê

ú

F

$

$

$

$

@

ô

&

&

&

&

&

&

Ffw

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

F

 10

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  10


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 2827]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00724]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0316; FRL--9905-47-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing
Plants (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas
Processing Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts KKK and LLL) (Renewal)''
(EPA ICR No. 1086.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0120), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31,
2014. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register (78 FR 33409) on June 4, 2013, during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 18,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0316, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), and any changes,
or additions, to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 60,
subparts KKK and LLL. Owners or operators of the affected facilities
must submit a one-time-only report of any physical or operational
changes, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semi-annually at
a minimum.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of onshore
natural gas processing plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts KKK and LLL).
    Estimated number of respondents: 577 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually and occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 121,646 hours (annually). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $11,967,480 (per year), includes $68,400
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease in burden from the
OMB Inventory of Approved Burden. This change is attributed to a
decrease in the number of affected onshore gas processing facilities
subject to subparts KKK and LLL, which was due to the impact of a new
NSPS rule, which is subpart OOOO. This ICR merges EPA ICR Numbers
1086.09 and 2438.02 in order to resolve the inconsistencies with the
required monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements under
these rules, as well as to update the number of existing respondents,
resulting from the issuing of the new subpart OOOO. New and modified
sources after August 23, 2011, subject to subparts KKK and LLL will now
report under subpart OOOO; therefore, this ICR only includes the burden
for existing respondents that are subject to the subparts KKK and LLL.
    It should be noted that the wage rates in this ICR have been
updated resulting in an increase of the cost of labor.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-00724 Filed 1-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75399-75400]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-42-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Wells Fargo Negotiated Rate to
be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20161020-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-43-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/20/16 Negotiated Rates--
Trafigura Trading LLC (RTS) 7445-10 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20161020-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-44-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker Filing 10/21/16
to be effective 12/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161021-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-45-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/21/16 Negotiated Rates--
Macquarie Energy LLC (RTS) 4090-13 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161021-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-46-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/21/16 Negotiated Rates--
Macquarie Energy LLC (RTS) 4090-14 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161021-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-47-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cargill
contract 510950 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161021-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-48-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/21/16 Negotiated Rates--
Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC (RTS) 7300-01 to be effective 11/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 10/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161021-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/16.

    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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1301-001.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Interim Fuel Filing RP16-
1301 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20161020-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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 October 24, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26226 Filed 10-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 29511]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-81-000]

Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. v. California Independent System
Operator Corporation; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 17, 2019, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.206, Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. (Complainant), filed a
formal complaint against California Independent System Operator
Corporation (CAISO or Respondent) alleging that CAISO failed to follow
its Tariff and otherwise failed to perform a just and reasonable, open,
transparent, comparable and not unduly discriminatory study of Lake
Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage project and also order CAISO to
correct its modeling errors and produce new results using the data it
already has, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    Complainant certifies that copies of the Complaint were served on
Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondents'
answers and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondents' answers, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submissions of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2019.

    Dated: June 18, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13343 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50877-50878]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0755]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Alternative
Pilot Physical Examination and Education Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
FAA invites public comments about our intention to request Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Aviation Administration Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016 was enacted on July 15, 2016. Section 2307 of
FESSA, Medical Certification of Certain Small Aircraft Pilots, directed
the FAA to

``issue or revise regulations to ensure that an individual may operate
as pilot in command of a covered aircraft'' without having to undergo
the medical certification process prescribed by FAA regulations if the
pilot and aircraft meet certain prescribed conditions as outlined in
FESSA. This collection enables those eligible airmen to establish their
eligibility with the FAA.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Dwayne C. Morris, AFS-820, 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20591.
    By email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bradley C. Zeigler by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0770.
    Title: Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and Education
Requirements.
    Form Numbers: FAA forms 8700-2 and 8700-3.
    Type of Review: Renewal.
    Background: The FAA will use this information to determine that
individual pilots have met the requirements of section 2307 of Public
Law 114-190. It is important for the FAA to know this information as
the vast majority of pilots conducting operations described in section
2307 of Public Law 114-190 must either hold a valid medical certificate
or be conducting operations using the requirements of section 2307 as
an alternative to holding a medical certificate.
    The FAA published a final rule, Alternative Pilot Physical
Examination and Education Requirements, to implement the provisions of
section 2307, on January 11, 2017.
    Respondents: Approximately 50,000 individuals.
    Frequency: Course: Once every two years; medical exam: once every
four years.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 21 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 17,500 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 23, 2019.
Dwayne C. Morris,
Project Manager, Flight Standards Service, General Aviation and
Commercial Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-20901 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36801-36802]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15155]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146; FRL-9912-98-OAR]

Release of Integrated Review Plan for the Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of a final document titled Integrated Review Plan for the
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide
(IRP). This document contains the plans for the review of the air
quality criteria for health for oxides of nitrogen and the primary
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). The primary NO2 NAAQS provide for the
protection of public health from exposure to oxides of nitrogen in
ambient air.

DATES: The IRP will be available on or about June 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This document will be available primarily via the Internet
at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_2012_pd.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Beth Hassett-Sipple, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
919-541-4605; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42
U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air
pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants.
The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in her
``judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;'' ``the presence
of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or
stationary sources;'' and ``for which . . . [the Administrator] plans
to issue air quality criteria. . . . .'' Air quality criteria are
intended to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful
in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air . . .'' 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Under section
109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and
secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality
criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air
quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the
effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also
required to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS
based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an
independent scientific review committee ``shall complete a review of
the criteria . . . and the national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any
new . . . standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as
may be appropriate . . . .'' Since the early 1980's, this independent
review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC).
    Presently, the EPA is reviewing the primary NAAQS for
NO2.\1\ The final document, announced today, has been
developed as part of the planning phase for the review. This phase
began with a science policy workshop to identify issues and questions
to frame the review.\2\ Drawing from the workshop discussions, a draft
IRP was prepared jointly by the EPA's National Center for Environmental
Assessment, within the Office of Research and Development, and the
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, within the Office
of Air and Radiation (79 FR 7184, February 6, 2014).\3\ The draft IRP
was reviewed by CASAC at a meeting on March 12, 2014 (79 FR 8701,
February 13, 2014). Comments from CASAC on the draft IRP were provided
to the EPA in a June 10, 2014, letter (Frey, 2014).\4\

The final IRP includes consideration of CASAC and public comments
received on the draft IRP. This document presents the current plan and
specifies the schedule for the entire review, the process for
conducting the review, and the key policy-relevant science issues that
will guide the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA's call for information for this review was issued on
February 10, 2012 (77 FR 7149).
    \2\ The EPA held a workshop titled ``Kickoff Workshop to Inform
EPA's Review of the Primary NO2 NAAQS on February 29 to
March 1, 2012 (77 FR 7149, February 10, 2012).
    \3\ The EPA released a draft plan for developing the Integrated
Science Assessment (ISA) for CASAC consultation and public review
(78 FR 26026, May 3, 2013). The EPA held a consultation with CASAC
on this draft plan during a public teleconference on June 5, 2013
(78 FR 27234, May 10, 2013). Individual CASAC member comments were
provided to the EPA in a letter from Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Bob
Perciasepe, Acting Administrator, U.S. EPA, Consultation on the
EPA's Draft Plan for the Development of the Integrated Science
Assessment for Nitrogen Oxides--Health Criteria (May 2013 Draft).
June 18, 2013. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/
08EF0A3789CDB13A85257B8E006A496E/$File/EPA-CASAC-13-
006+unsigned.pdf. CASAC and public comments on that draft plan were
considered in developing Chapter 4 of the draft IRP.
    \4\ Letter from Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Gina McCarthy,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. CASAC Review of the EPA's Integrated Review
Plan for the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Nitrogen Dioxide (External Review Draft) (February 2014). June 10,
2014. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/89989229944F36B085257CF300692E2A/
$File/EPA-CASAC-14-001+unsigned.pdf.

    Dated: June 19, 2014.
Mary Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-15155 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                             BPPD Meeting Summary

Meeting:  			National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC)

Date and Time:		April 22, 2015; 9:30  -  10:30 AM

Location:			EPA HQ (Potomac Yards South, Arlington, VA), Room S-8771

Topic:	Corn Rootworm Resistance Management; EPA's proposal to enhance existing IRM strategies; public comment period

Attendees:	Jim Steffel (NAICC)
	James Todd (NAICC)
	Kimberly Nesci (EPA/BPPD)
	Mike Mendelsohn (EPA/BPPD)
	Alan Reynolds (EPA/BPPD)
	Bill Chism (EPA/BEAD)

Agenda (provided by NAICC):

   * Review/status of Bt CRW resistance management proposal
   * Who does EPA see as responsible for implementation of the various components of the framework
   * IPM value of SAI's
   * Suggestions for long term resistance management of CRW
   * Basis for use of SAI by crop consultants
   * Grower understanding and adoption of IPM

Points of Discussion:

BPPD discussed the status of the CRW IRM proposal.  The public comment period, which closed 4/15/15, garnered 87 total comments.  Many comments were received from grower groups, associations, farm bureaus, and crop consultants (including NAICC).  The comments were helpful to BPPD in identifying the issues most important to growers.  Most of the grower-based comments expressed concerns about restricting or mandating CRW management tools, such as soil-applied insecticides and crop rotation.

BPPD discussed the "next steps" in the process.   In May, BPPD will convene another meeting with the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee (ABSTC) to discuss the proposal.  All meetings related to the proposal will be summarized for the docket to maintain a transparent, open process.  BPPD emphasized that no agreements or arrangements have been reached yet regarding the proposal.

NAICC discussed potential impacts to the 2016 growing season.  It was noted that growers will make planting decisions in the Fall and should commit to seed orders before November 1[st].   However, NAICC indicated that untraited (non-Bt) seed may be in limited supply for some growers.

BPPD and NAICC discussed how crop consultants integrate IPM techniques in their guidance to growers.  Consultants have regional expertise, so many growers rely on their advice for farming decisions, including resistance management strategies.  NAICC stated that any significant changes to CRW IRM (i.e., IPM techniques, refuge changes) could take several years to adapt.  A gradual introduction of new techniques may be helpful, particularly if equipment changes are needed (planter boxes, tractors, pesticide application equipment, etc.).   NAICC noted that many growers are still adjusting to the restriction/cancellation of some pesticides by EPA.  NAICC also emphasized the need for flexibility since soil, climate, and insect pressure can vary in different corn-growing regions.

BPPD discussed implementation questions regarding the proposed IRM enhancements.  As with other aspects of resistance management (e.g., refuge, compliance, and resistance monitoring), any changes are likely to be implemented by registrants through the terms and conditions of the Bt corn registrations.  A significant challenge for EPA and ABSTC will be how to involve other important stakeholders (seed dealers, consultants, extension personnel, growers) in the process.  These stakeholders could help with early resistance detection (i.e., field scouting), though there are concerns with logistics (multiple registrants) and resources (declining extension budgets).


[Federal Register: November 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 66825]
[DOCID:fr03no05-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-48-000]

Crossroads Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

October 27, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 25, 2005, Crossroads Pipeline Company
(Crossroads) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 231, with a proposed
effective date of November 24, 2005.
    Crossroads states it is proposing to revise section 19 (Penalties)
of the general terms and conditions (GTC) of its Tariff in order to
replace the existing fixed price penalties with penalties based on a
daily indexed price.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6079 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 175 (Thursday, September 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54562-54563]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filing Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1228-000.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 2015 Semi-annual
Fuel & Electric Power Reimbursement to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1229-000.
    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): Annual Fuel
and Gas Loss Retention Percentage Adjustment Filing to be effective 10/
1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1230-000.
    Applicants: Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: DART Compatibility
and Index Price Update Filing to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1231-000.
    Applicants: Kinetica Energy Express, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Order No. 776
Compliance Filing ACA Surcharge to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5246.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1232-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): FL&U to be
effective 10-1-15 to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5254.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1233-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Operational Purchase and Sales Report of Colorado
Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. under RP15-1233.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5283.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1234-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Amendments to Neg
Rate Agmts (QEP 37657-179, 36601-53) to be effective 9/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5306.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1235-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Amendment to Neg
Rate Agmt (ONEOK 34951-113) to be effective 9/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5310.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1236-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Amendment to Neg
Rate Agmt (Devon 34694-64) to be effective 9/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5312.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1238-000.
    Applicants: Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Park and Loan
Filing to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5346.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1239-000.
    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: SESH Incremental
Fuel--Amended FTS Contract to be effective 9/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5396.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1240-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: 2015 Operational
Entitlements Filing to be effective N/A under.
    Filed Date: 8/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150831-5410.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2473-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.501: 2014 CICO Filing to be
effective N/A under RP11-2473.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2474-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.501: 2014 CICO Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1241-000.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: CKT.TCO Split to
be effective 10/1/2015 under RP15-1241.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1242-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated
Capacity Release Agreements--09/01/2015 to be effective 9/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1243-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 2015 Cash Out
Filing to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1244-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate
Service Agmt--Columbia 165033 to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1245-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Off System Capacity Request of Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC under RP15-1245.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1246-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: FTS-2 Out of Path Refund Report of Columbia Gulf
Transmission under RP15-.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1247-000.
    Applicants: Excelerate Gas Marketing, Limited Partne, Excelerate
Energy L.P.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver and Request for
Expedited Action of Excelerate Gas Marketing, Limited Partnership and
Excelerate Energy Limited Partnership under RP15-1247.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/15.

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

     Dated: September 2, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2015-22805 Filed 9-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P