memorandum
to:	CISWI Reconsideration Docket
from:	Amy Lamson, Risk and Benefits Group
subject:	Health Benefits for CISWI Reconsideration Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
date:	12/8/2011

      Due to time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we were unable to fully update the RIA for the CISWI reconsideration proposal. We provide this memo to the docket as documentation of the estimated health benefits to support the preamble and the communication materials. These health benefits were calculated using the methodology described in the final CISWI RIA, which is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/CISWIRIAfinal110221_psg2.pdf, using the revised emission reductions estimated for the reconsideration proposal. We were unable to estimate the benefits from reducing exposure to HAPs and ozone, ecosystem impairment, and visibility impairment, including reducing 22,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 590 tons of HCl, 3.1 tons of lead, 1.6 tons of cadmium, 290 pounds of mercury, and 94 grams of dioxins/furans. Please refer to the full description in the final CISWI RIA of the unquantified benefits as well as analysis limitations and uncertainties. These monetized benefits are approximately 4% lower than the final CISWI NSPS due to the slight decrease in emission reductions of PM2.5, SO2, and NOx.

Table 1: Summary of Monetized Benefits Estimates for CISWI Reconsideration Proposal
                                in 2015 (2008$)
                                   Pollutant
                          Emissions Reductions (tons)
                          Benefit per ton (Pope, 3%)
                          Benefit per ton (Laden, 3%)
                          Benefit per ton (Pope, 7%)
                          Benefit per ton (Laden, 7%)
                Total Monetized Benefits (millions 2008$ at 3%)
                Total Monetized Benefits (millions 2008$ at 7%)
Direct PM2.5
                                      670
                                   $230,000
                                   $560,000
                                   $210,000
                                   $500,000
                                                                           $150
                                      to
$370
                                                                           $140
                                      to
$340
PM2.5 Precursors

SO2
                                     5,033
                                    $29,000
                                    $72,000
                                    $27,000
                                    $65,000
                                                                           $150
                                      to
$360
                                                                           $130
                                      to
$330
NO2
                                     5,405
                                    $4,900
                                    $12,000
                                    $4,400
                                    $11,000
                                                                          $26.0
                                      to
$64.0
                                                                          $24.0
                                      to
$58.0

                                     Total
                                                                           $330
                                      to
$800
                                                                           $300
                                      to
$720
*All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. The benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM2.5. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. These estimates do not include benefits from reducing HAP emissions or ozone benefits.

Table 2: Summary of Estimated Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 for the
                    CISWI Reconsideration Proposal in 2015*
Avoided Premature Mortality
Pope et al.
                                      37
Laden et al.
                                      94
Avoided Morbidity
Chronic Bronchitis
                                      25
Acute Myocardial Infarction
                                      59
Hospital Admissions, Respiratory
                                       9
Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular
                                      19
Emergency Room Visits, Respiratory
                                      35
Acute Bronchitis
                                      59
Work Loss Days
                                     4,900
Asthma Exacerbation
                                      650
MRAD
                                    29,000
Lower Respiratory Symptoms
                                      710
Upper Respiratory Symptoms
                                      530

*All estimates are for the analysis year (2015) and are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. These estimates do not include benefits from reducing HAP emissions and ozone exposure, nor energy disbenefits associated with the increased emissions from additional energy usage.

           Figure 1: Breakdown of Monetized Benefits by Subcategory

Figure 2: Total Monetized PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the CISWI Reconsideration Proposal in 2015


CALPUFF ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF THE JUNE 2005 CHANGES TO THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE June 15, 2005 1 The following is in support of the June 2005 revisions to the Regional Haze Rule ( RHR) and the Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) Determinations under the regional haze rule. The report documents a portion of the work involving the exercise of the CALPUFF dispersion model for assessing visibility impairment associated with proto typical BART eligible coal fired EGUs and industrial boilers.

Background To reduce haze, and to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPA in April 1999 issued a regional haze rule aimed at protecting visibility in 156 federal areas. The rule seeks to reduce the visibility impairment caused by many sources over a wide area. EPA's previous visibility regulation, issued in 1980, addressed only local visibility impairment from local sources. Soon after the regional haze rule was finalized, several parties filed petitions challenging the rule with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit. Because regional haze is a problem caused by multiple sources over a wide area, EPA's rule required that states ( in determining BART requirements) assess visibility impairment on a cumulative basis using a regional air quality model; i. e., as opposed to assessing visibility impairment on a source by source basis. In May 2002, the court ruled that EPA's approach to BART was not acceptable; specifically, the court maintained that the approach infringed on States' discretion by not providing an option for States to make BART determinations on an individual, source by source basis. Consequently, the court vacated portions of the regional haze rule related to BART and remanded to EPA for appropriate actions. Further discussion of the procedural history of this rule can be found in the preamble accompanying the final rule.

Use of CALPUFF for Regional Haze One of the first challenges encountered in responding to the court's remand involved the identification of appropriate analytical tools; currently, CALPUFF is the only available dispersion model with capability for estimating secondarily formed particulates ( a critical ingredient in the regional haze problem). The challenge we encountered is that CALPUFF has not been fully tested for secondary formation and thus is not fully approved for applications in PSD permitting and NAAQS attainment demonstrations ( i. e., it is approved for primary particulates, but not for secondarily formed particulates). One justification for using CALPUFF for BART is that, unlike PSD and NAAQS, the BART modeling results do not, by themselves, determine the regulatory consequences. Additionally, we believe that CALPUFF is based on sufficiently sound technical grounds to support assessments of relative impacts among BART eligible sources for the purposes of guiding more refined analyses and to help inform regulatory decisions that are based on a cumulative weight of evidence, such as the statutorily defined factors for consideration in assessing BART for regional haze. Further description of CALPUFF is provided below. 2 The BART Process The BART process consists of the following:

1. Identify, in accordance with CAA Section 169A( b)( 2), whether a source is " BARTeligible based on its source category, when it was put in service, and its emissions of one or more " visibility impairing" air pollutants including, gaseous precursors to visibilityimpairing particulate matter.

2. Determine whether a BART eligible source is " subject to BART" ( for any visibilityimpairing pollutant), based on an estimate of the source's impact on visibility.

3. Determine BART for the source by evaluating control options and selecting the " best" alternative, taking into consideration:

! The costs of compliance,

! The energy and non air quality environmental impacts of compliance,

! Any existing pollution control technology in use at the source,

! The remaining useful life of the source, and ! The degree of improvement in visibility that may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of BART.

Our support to the BART process is focused on step 2, determining whether a BART eligible source is subject to BART based on an estimate of its impact on visibility. Our approach to this task involved : ( 1) selection of sources to analyze, ( 2) creation of modeling domains to provide separate analyses for eastern and western locations, and ( 3) use of a range of emission rates to bracket analyses of most interest/ use to decision making for the BART rule. In the process of selecting sources for analyses we constructed proto typical sources to represent two important categories in the universe of BART eligible sources: coal fired boilers used to power electrical generating units ( EGUs) and coal fired industrial boilers. This process resulted in a total of 23 scenarios for analysis. Source characteristics and emission rates for the 23 scenarios are given in Table 1. The source characteristics are median values based on representative samples of BART eligible units. The emission rates were selected to address various questions related to the implementation of the BART requirement. It should be noted that although the emission rates are given in tons per year, this does not impart or imply any special meaning to the values; e. g., there is no presumption that the values represent actual or allowable emissions. 3 Table 1 Emission rates and source parameters used in CALPUFF modeling for BART Eligible coal fired boilers Emission rates ( tpy) Run # Source ID Hgt Elev Diam Vel Temp SO2 NOx PM25 Domain ( m) ( m) ( m) ( m/ s) ( K)

1 EGU_ E# 1 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 10000 3500 50 Eastern 2 EGU_ W# 2 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 10000 6250 50 Western 3 EGU_ E# 3 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 5000 3500 50 Eastern 4 EGU_ W# 4 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 5000 6250 50 Western 5 EGU_ E# 5 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 1000 3500 50 Eastern 6 EGU_ W# 6 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 1000 6250 50 Western 7 EGU_ E# 7 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 1000 350 50 Eastern 8 EGU_ W# 8 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 1000 625 50 Western 9 EGU_ E# 9 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 30000 10000 50 Eastern 10 EGU_ E# 10 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 3000 10000 50 Eastern 11 EGU_ E# 11 100 200 8.0 27.0 400 3000 1000 50 Eastern 12 IB_ E# 12 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 7000 1400 20 Eastern 13 IB_ W# 13 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 7000 1400 20 Western 14 IB_ E# 14 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 900 1400 20 Eastern 15 IB_ W# 15 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 900 1400 20 Western 16 IB_ E# 16 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 900 300 20 Eastern 17 IB_ W# 17 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 900 300 20 Western 18 IB_ E# 18 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 0 1000 20 Eastern 19 IB_ E# 19 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 0 500 20 Eastern 20 IB_ W# 20 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 0 1000 20 Western 21 IB_ W# 21 55 200 2.6 11.4 414 0 500 20 Western 22 IB_ E# 22 55 200 3.1 11.4 478 7000 1400 20 Eastern 23 IB_ W# 23 55 200 3.1 11.4 478 7000 1400 20 Western Key to Source ID EGU Electrical Generating Unit IB Industrial Boiler _ E indicates the Eastern domain _ W indicates the Western domain # nn indicates the run number 1 Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred Long Range Transport Model and Other Revisions; Final Rule, FR, Vol. 68, No. 72, April 15, 2003.

2 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling ( IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts. EPA 454/ R 98 019, 1998.

4 CALPUFF CALPUFF is an advanced meteorological and air quality modeling system recommended by the U. S. EPA as the preferred tool for evaluating impacts associated with the long range transport of primary pollutants. It was promulgated for regulatory use in specific circumstances in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 511. CALPUFF is also recommended by the Inter Agency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling ( IWAQM) for use in evaluating impacts on visibility in the 156 Federal Class I areas2. The modeling system consists of three main components: CALMET ( a diagnostic 3 dimensional meteorological model), CALPUFF ( an air quality dispersion model), and CALPOST ( a postprocessing package).

With few exceptions we have used the default CALPUFF settings as recommended in the IWAQM Phase 2 report. Our setups ( selections of model options and switch settings) for the three CALPUFF modules ( CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST) are documented in the example command file input images provided in appendix A. Complete documentation on our use of CALPUFF for BART is included on a DVD which is being provided to the docket for the June 2005 changes to the regional haze rule. In the following we highlight portions of this material.

As mentioned previously, we created two modeling domains ( east and west) for use in evaluating the potential effects of our proto typical BART eligible sources The two domains are identical in terms of the overall size ( dimensions) and grid spacing. Each domain is a 600 x 600 km square sectioned into 75 x 75 horizontal grid cells and 10 vertical layers; the horizontal grid spacing is 8 km., vertical levels are located at 20,50,75, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000, 2000, and 3000 m.

The location of the domain determines which meteorological stations will be used in CALMET to build the three dimensional wind fields used in CALPUFF. The Eastern domain is centered over West Virginia and uses meteorological data for 5 upper air stations and 22 surface stations ( see Table A 2). The Western domain is centered over Denver and uses meteorological data for 3 upper air stations and 12 surface stations ( see Table A 1). Meteorological data for the five year period 1986 1990 were used for both domains.

The CALPUFF modeling domain is a subset of the CALMET domain. For both domains we employ a 5 grid cell ( 40 km) buffer to guard against edge effects at the boundaries; this results in a 520 km x 520 km CALPUFF domain. The proto typical source to be evaluated is placed at the center of the domain. Receptors for use in modeling were placed in concentric rings located every 25 km to a maximum range of 250 km; receptors were located every 10 degrees along each ring. Other than the meteorology there are no other domain specific factors in our CALPUFF 5 ) 10 / ln( 10 ext b HI =

( )   dv b b ext m ext = + 10 1 0 ln _ _ modeling. Both domains were modeled in a flat terrain mode using a common source/ receptor base elevation of 200 m. In addition, there is no presumption regarding the location of Class I areas in our CALPUFF analyses. The unstated presumption, in the use of our results for BART, is that all receptors are located in Class I areas.

Background Ozone  The IWAQM recommended default for ozone is 80 ppb. The results presented here are based on CALPUFF estimates using a background concentration of 50 ppb. The lower value better characterizes the more recent data for the National Park Service monitoring sites.

Background Ammonia  The IWAQM recommended default for forested locations, 0.5 ppb, was used for the eastern domain. The IWAQM recommended value for arid locations, 1.0 ppb, was used for the western domain.

Metric for Tracking Progress Under the RHR According to the Regional Haze Rule, baseline visibility conditions, progress goals, and changes in natural visibility conditions must be expressed in terms of deciview ( dv) units. The deciview is a unit of measurement of haze, implemented in a haze index ( HI) that is derived from calculated light extinction, and that is designed so that uniform changes in haziness correspond approximately to uniform incremental changes in perception, across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The HI is expressed by the following formula:

Here, a reference extinction coefficient of 10 ( Mm 1) in the denominator of the log corresponds to a ` pristine' environment and a haze index ( deciview) of zero. Because visibility impairment is a relative quantity, the estimated ( i. e., modeled) extinction for a particular source is not sufficient by itself to quantify the perceived effects on visibility of that source. This is because a given source impact ( extinction) that may go unnoticed when viewed against a hazy background may be acutely apparent when viewed against a pristine background. A fractional measure, made up of the modeled extinction coefficient ( b ext m) and a background extinction coefficient ( b ext 0), is needed to assess changes in visibility. Two such measures are computed and reported in CALPOST, the fractional ( percent) change in extinction and the change in the haze index ( deltadeciview

EPA tracks progress under the regional haze program using a metric for natural visibility conditions ( i. e., the goal of the regional haze program). This term is significant in and of itself to 3 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA 454/ B 03 005, September 2003.

4 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, 1991. Acid Deposition: State of the Science and Technology Report 24. Visibility: Existing and Historical Conditions  Causes and Effects.

6 the extent that it has its own guidance document3. The following is from EPA's guidance for estimating natural visibility conditions under the regional haze rule.

" The term natural visibility conditions represents the ultimate goal of the regional haze program, consistent with the national visibility goal set forth in section 169A of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). The national visibility goal is to remedy existing and prevent future human caused impairment of visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas. Regional haze strategies are to make reasonable progress towards this goal.... estimates of natural visibility conditions should reflect contemporary conditions and land use patterns. That is, estimates should attempt to calculate the degree of visibility impairment that exists today, given current vegetative landscapes, when human emissions contributions are removed..... The 1991 peer reviewed report of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program ( NAPAP) 4 provides annual average estimates of natural concentrations for these six main components of PM for the eastern and western regions of the country. By applying assumptions for average extinction efficiencies for each PM component and for the effect of humidity, the NAPAP report also included estimates of natural visibility conditions on an annual average basis. With minor adjustments, these estimates provide the starting point for calculating natural visibility conditions in the mandatory Federal Class I areas The approach to estimating natural conditions presented in the NAPAP report defines two separate regions of the United States: ( 1) the East, which consists of all the States east of the Mississippi River, and up to one tier of States west of the Mississippi; and ( 2) the West , including the desert/ mountain regions of the Mountain and Pacific time zones. Geographically, these two subregions show strong differences in haze sources, vegetation, relative humidity, and regional haze levels. .... Table 2 1 presents the default estimated natural concentrations of the particulate species for the East and the West along with estimates of the dry extinction efficiencies for each species. These concentration estimates are used with the respective estimates of the dry extinction efficiencies to establish the light extinction attributed to natural sources in the East and West."

Natural Visibility Conditions Used with CALPUFF Domains With the information provided in EPA's guidance for estimating natural visibility, and annual average f( rh) values of 3.0 and 2.0 for East and West, respectively ( also provided in the natural visibility guidance document) we have the necessary information for calculating annual average natural visibility conditions for the eastern and western CALPUFF modeling domains. The annual average natural extinction values for the eastern and western domains are 21.2 and 15.7 ( 1/ Mm), respectively; these values correspond to haze index values of 7 .5 and 4.5 deciviews, respectively. 7 Results Visibility results for the 23 scenarios are given in Appendix B. For each scenario there is a table giving the number of days ( in the indicated year) that a given delta dv threshold ( 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0) was exceeded at three distances ( 50, 100, and 200 km). A second table gives the ten highest delta dv values for each year ( 1986 1990) for the same three distances ( 50, 100, and 200 km). In the top ten tables, a 99th percentile is approximately equivalent to a value midway between the values for ranks 3 and 4. Similarly, a 98th percentile is approximately equivalent to the value associated with a rank of 7.

Caution to Readers Readers of this document are cautioned that it is not intended to provide guidance or recommendations on how to run CALPUFF for BART. By their very nature, illustrative modeling analyses using proto typical sources ( as described herein) necessitate the use of assumptions that may not be appropriate in a given regulatory application. For example, a State will be modeling a real source and will know the direction and distance to the nearest Class I area; one would not expect a State to treat the entire modeling domain as a Class I area as was done in the illustrative analyses described here. Although our procedures included the use of default model options and switch settings, one should not view this as either precluding other procedures or providing guarantees that using these procedures will result in actions that are fully approvable.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16849-16850]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any

responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the
prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the
Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek
the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a
prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the
Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in
the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only
when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified
below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall
serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list
for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR
385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Docket No.                              File date                   Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Prohibited
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ER19-603-000............................  4/3/2019                           Donald H. Albertson.
2. P-2305-000..............................  4/3/2019                           Lower Sabine River Basin Board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Exempt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP17-41-000.............................  4/3/2019                           FERC Staff.\1\
2. CP17-41-000.............................  4/12/2019                          U.S. House of Representative
                                                                                Darin LaHood.
3. CP17-495-000............................  4/12/2019                          U.S. Congressmen.\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Communications Memorandum dated 4/3/19 forwarding email correspondence with Dana Bethea of National Oceanic
  Atmosphere Administration.
\2\ Congressmen Ron Wyden and Peter DeFazio.

    Dated: April 17, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08115 Filed 4-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28849-28851]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-878-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--BP Energy
Contract 911353 to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20160428-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-879-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 20160428 Winter PRA Fuel
Rates to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20160428-5252.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-880-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate AGS Service
Agreement--EQT Energy effective 5-1-2016 to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20160428-5295.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-881-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (APS May 2016) to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20160428-5296.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-882-000.
    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing 2016 GNGS TUP/SBA.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-883-000.
    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 2016 SESH TUP/SBA Annual
Filing to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-884-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: FL&U to be effective June 1,
2016 to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-885-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel and L&U Rates to be
effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-886-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cashout Surcharge 2016 to be
effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5011.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-887-000.
    Applicants: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 4-29-16 to be
effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-888-000.
    Applicants: Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 4-29-16 to be
effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5014.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-889-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Reticulated Area Points to
be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-890-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt Filing
(Oglethorpe 8482 to NJR 46096) to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-891-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing in Docket No.
CP14-553-000 to submit Neg Rate Agmts to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-892-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (FPL
41618 to Tenaska 46324) to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-893-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (FPL
41618 to LaClede 46332) to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-894-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Update to Pre-Effective Date
Amendments to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-895-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Occidental Energy Marketing
to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-896-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Macquarie Energy LLC to be
effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-897-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Tenaska to be effective 5/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-898-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracking Filing April
2016 to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-899-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: OFO and Scheduling Revisions
to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-900-000.
    Applicants: Kinetica Deepwater Express, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Kinetica Deepwater Express
Tariff Name Change and Cleanup Filing to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-901-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Portland General Electric
Negotiated Rate to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-902-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Colonial
Releases to BBPC 791520 & 791521 to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-903-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee
AGL--Replacement Shippers--May 2016 to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-904-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Baystate
to BBPC 791489 to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-905-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Amendment--
BP 510820 to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5285.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-906-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 20160429 Negotiated Rate to
be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5314.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-907-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 04/29/16 Negotiated Rates--
Empire Generating Co, LLC (RTS) 7480-06 to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5318.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-908-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: EPC JUNE 2016 FILING to be
effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5320.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-909-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2016-04-29 CP to be
effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5407.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-910-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: DCP--St. Charles
Transportation Project (CP15-22) to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5461.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-911-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: May 1-31 2016 Service to be
effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5470.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-913-000.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Par.
    Description: Great Lakes Gas Transmission's Revenue Cap and Revenue
Sharing Mechanism True-Up Report.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5515.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    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: RP15-65-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Report Filing: Settlement Refund Report in Docket No.
RP15-65-000.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-137-007.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.
    Description: Compliance filing Motion Filing for Rate Case to be
effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20160428-5287.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-584-004.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Revenue Sharing Report--2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-501-003.
    Applicants: High Point Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance for NAESB Order Version 3
to be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-532-002.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Order 809 & NAESB 3.0 Errata Filing
to be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5466.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-696-001.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Compliance filing Docket No. RP16-696-000 Compliance
Filing--WSS Incremental Rates.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5452.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-857-002.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing Amended Order On Compliance Order to
be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160429-5469.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/16.

    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: May 2, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10870 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34797-34798]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0381]

Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port New York
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones in the
Sector New York area of responsibility on various dates and times. This
action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from
hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement
period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without
permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES: The regulations for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160
will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Ensign Kimberly Farnsworth, Coast Guard; telephone 718-
354-4163, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated
in Table 1 below. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the
regulation will be enforced on the rain date indicated in Table 1
below. These regulations were published in the Federal Register on
November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Intrepid Air and Sea Museum            Launch site: A barge
 Fireworks (update), Pier 84 Hudson       located in approximate
 River Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(5.9).  position 40[deg]45'56.9'' N,
                                          074[deg]00'25.4'' W (NAD
                                          1983), approximately 380 yards
                                          west of Pier 84, Manhattan,
                                          New York.
                                          Date: May 23, 2012
                                          Rain Date: May 24,
                                          2012
                                          Time: 9:30 p.m.-10:42
                                          p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Midland Beach Sea Turtle Fireworks,    Launch site: A barge
 Midland Beach Safety Zone, Staten        located in approximate
 Island, 33 CFR 165.160(2.11).            position 40[deg]34'12'' N,
                                          074[deg]04'29.6'' W (NAD
                                          1983), approximately 800 yards
                                          southeast of the Midland
                                          Beach.
                                          Date: June 16, 2012
                                          Rain Date: June 17,
                                          2012
                                          Time: 8:30 p.m.-9:48
                                          p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wolfe's Pond Park, Wofle's Pond Park   Launch site: A barge
 Safety Zone, Staten Island, 33 CFR       located in approximate
 165.160(5.2).                            position 40[deg]30'52.1'' N,
                                          074[deg]10'58.8'' W (NAD
                                          1983), approximately 540 yards
                                          east of Wolfe's Pond Park,
                                          Staten Island, New York.
                                          Date: June 30, 2012
                                          Rain Date: July 1,
                                          2012
                                          Time: 8:30 p.m.-9:48
                                          p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Fort Hamilton Independence Day, Fort   Launch site: A barge
 Hamilton Safety Zone, 33 CFR             located in approximate
 165.160(2.14).                           position 40[deg]36'00'' N,
                                          074[deg]01'42.5'' W (NAD
                                          1983), approximately 1400
                                          yards southeast of the
                                          Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
                                          Date: July 1, 2012
                                          Rain Date: July 2,
                                          2012
                                          Time: 9:15 p.m.-10:35
                                          p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, a vessel may not enter the
regulated area unless given express permission from the COTP or the
designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the
regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the
transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of
enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that the regulated area
need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: May 11, 2012.
G.P. Hitchen,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2012-14217 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Comments on Proposed Fish Comments on Proposed Fish Two Two Generation Toxicity Test Generation Toxicity Test Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation Subcommittee Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation Subcommittee December 4, 2002 December 4, 2002 Troy Troy Seidle Seidle Science Policy Advisor Science Policy Advisor People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals OPPT 2002 0059 0015 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 MAR19 2: 49PM Should Should prevalidation prevalidation evaluate the increased sensitivity evaluate the increased sensitivity of a two of a two generation design over the existing fish full generation design over the existing fish full life life cycle standard practice?

cycle standard practice?

In principle, yes. EPA must be able to demonstrate a In principle, yes. EPA must be able to demonstrate a significant need as well as " value added" before a new test significant need as well as " value added" before a new test and/ or endpoint is considered as a regulatory requirement.

and/ or endpoint is considered as a regulatory requirement.

That being said, EPA's current requirement for a multiplicity of That being said, EPA's current requirement for a multiplicity of animal tests for the same or similar endpoint( s) is redundant animal tests for the same or similar endpoint( s) is redundant and unacceptable and unacceptable e. g., pesticide AI's that have already undergone fish full life e. g., pesticide AI's that have already undergone fish full life cycle,

cycle,

mammalian 2 mammalian 2 gen gen. studies, etc., and HPV chemicals that are currently . studies, etc., and HPV chemicals that are currently undergoing 1 undergoing 1 gen gen. repro/ developmental studies, potentially being . repro/ developmental studies, potentially being required to undergo very similar studies under the EDSP.

required to undergo very similar studies under the EDSP.

Therefore, as a matter of policy, EPA program offices must Therefore, as a matter of policy, EPA program offices must better coordinate their chemical assessment efforts in order to better coordinate their chemical assessment efforts in order to prevent such obvious duplication.

prevent such obvious duplication. Should Should prevalidation prevalidation demonstrate the sensitivity and demonstrate the sensitivity and reproducibility for each species in the recommended reproducibility for each species in the recommended protocol?

protocol?

From a strictly scientific perspective, yes, because it would be From a strictly scientific perspective, yes, because it would be unwise to simply assume that data from one species are unwise to simply assume that data from one species are generalizable generalizable to another.

to another.

On a policy level, however, it would be inappropriate for EPA to On a policy level, however, it would be inappropriate for EPA to proceed into proceed into prevalidation prevalidation of a test of this magnitude with four of a test of this magnitude with four species.

species. A single species is more than enough A single species is more than enough. As the DRP . As the DRP suggests, " pre suggests, " pre selection of one of the four species  would limit selection of one of the four species  would limit the number of demonstration trials for full optimization " ( p. 2 the number of demonstration trials for full optimization " ( p. 2) Issues of concern regarding the DRP Issues of concern regarding the DRP Methodological limitations Methodological limitations " full life " full life cycle exposures  can result in unexpected interruptions in cycle exposures  can result in unexpected interruptions in exposure as a result of test substance behavior in water or equi exposure as a result of test substance behavior in water or equipment pment malfunction" ( p. 25)

malfunction" ( p. 25)

" continuous exposure of P, F1 and juvenile F2 generations has no " continuous exposure of P, F1 and juvenile F2 generations has not been t been reported" ( p. 27; also pp. 28 reported" ( p. 27; also pp. 28 31)

31)

" methods of sexual differentiation are established for " methods of sexual differentiation are established for zebrafish zebrafish and and medaka medaka, but are not published for fathead minnow and , but are not published for fathead minnow and sheepshead sheepshead minnow" ( p. 101)

minnow" ( p. 101)

Route of exposure Route of exposure Testing of poorly soluble compounds in aquatic systems is highly Testing of poorly soluble compounds in aquatic systems is highly questionable. EPA itself has recommended against testing of subs questionable. EPA itself has recommended against testing of substances tances with a log K with a log KOW OW  4.2 in fish because conditions of such studies are both   4.2 in fish because conditions of such studies are both biologically and toxicologically irrelevant ( HPV Test Rule, 2000 biologically and toxicologically irrelevant ( HPV Test Rule, 2000,

, 65 Fed 65 Fed Reg Reg, 81658 , 81658 81685)

81685)

Use of solvents to enhance exposure to hydrophobic compounds is Use of solvents to enhance exposure to hydrophobic compounds is questionable.

questionable.

Major identified confounds associated with oral exposure route.

Major identified confounds associated with oral exposure route. Issues of concern regarding the DRP Issues of concern regarding the DRP Dose selection and sample size Dose selection and sample size The The DRP's DRP's proposed use of " at least five treatment levels" ( p. 30) is proposed use of " at least five treatment levels" ( p. 30) is excessive and should be reduced.

excessive and should be reduced.

The number of replicates and control groups ( e. g., solvent, dilu The number of replicates and control groups ( e. g., solvent, dilution water,

tion water,

etc.) should be minimized.

etc.) should be minimized.

The recommended " 100 embryos per replicate" is unacceptably high The recommended " 100 embryos per replicate" is unacceptably high and,

and,

as the DRP acknowledges, " twice the number previously recommende as the DRP acknowledges, " twice the number previously recommended by regulatory agencies" ( p. 34).

by regulatory agencies" ( p. 34). Concluding thoughts Concluding thoughts EPA's development of two EPA's development of two generation / life generation / life cycle toxicity cycle toxicity studies in five separate taxonomic groups is redundant and studies in five separate taxonomic groups is redundant and unnecessary.

unnecessary.

Immediate consideration should be given to reducing the Immediate consideration should be given to reducing the scope of Tier 2 to the scope of Tier 2 to the single most sensitive species single most sensitive species, and , and discontinuing efforts to develop and validate multigenerational discontinuing efforts to develop and validate multigenerational studies in others.

studies in others.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 83830]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2706-001.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment to LGIA/SGIA Order Nos.
827 and 828 Combined Compliance Filing to be effective 11/30/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20161115-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-33-001.
    Applicants: Breadbasket LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amend Cancellation MBR Filing to be
effective 10/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20161115-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-228-001.
    Applicants: King Forest Industries, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended MBR Application to be
effective 12/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20161115-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-351-000.
    Applicants: American Falls Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: American Falls Solar LLC MBR
Application to be effective 1/5/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20161115-5057.
    Docket Numbers: ER17-352-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO NYSEG Greenidge joint
filing LGIA 2305 to be effective 10/31/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20161115-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-353-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Bylaws Revisions to Expand
Strategic Planning Committee and Oversight Committee to be effective 1/
14/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20161115-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-354-000.
    Applicants: American Falls Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: American Falls Solar II MBR
Application Filing to be effective 1/5/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20161115-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 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: November 15, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28079 Filed 11-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15403]
[DOCID:fr28mr06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-58-000]

FirstEnergy Corp.; Notice of Filing

March 21, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 9, 2006, FirstEnergy Corp. submitted a
petition for declaratory order requesting a finding by the Commission
that the payment of dividends out of paid-in-capital by the FirstEnergy
Operating Companies, subject to conditions and limitation proposed
herein, will not violate section 305(a) of the Federal Power Act.
    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 on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 10, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4459 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16250-16252]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-57-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Grand
Chenier Compressor Station Amendment Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Grand Chenier Compressor Station
Abandonment Project involving abandonment of facilities by Texas
Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This
gathering of public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental
document on the important environmental issues. Additional information
about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA
Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 10, 2023. Comments may be
submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments
are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on February 10, 2023, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP23-57-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that
eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle
eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these
matters.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to

assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under
the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP23-
57-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These
instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification
and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Eastern proposes to abandon its existing Grand Chenier
Compressor Station in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Texas Eastern would
disconnect and remove aboveground structures and associated
appurtenances along with all piping and other buried structures to a
depth of two feet below grade. Texas Eastern's Line 41 and associated
mainline valve would remain in-service.
    In 2019, the Commission issued orders approving abandonment of
certain segments of Texas Eastern's Cameron System under Docket Nos.
CP18-485-000, CP18-486-000, and CP18-505-000. According to Texas
Eastern, the abandonment of these Cameron System segments removed the
need for the Grand Chenier Compressor Station.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact
FERC at [email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Abandonment of the compressor station would require 19.8 acres of
land, including 17.3 acres of temporary workspace and about 2.3 acres
of existing permanent and temporary access roads that would require
minor improvements. Texas Eastern would return all workspaces,
permanent access roads, and temporary access roads to pre-abandonment
conditions and use upon completion of the project.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation
of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     environmental justice;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     reliability and safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open up an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you
will receive instant email notification when the environmental document
is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian

tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\4\ The environmental document for this project will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP23-57-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: March 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05415 Filed 3-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P