[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40720-40721]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-78-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of
Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Line AM-
46 Replacement Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Line
AM-46 Replacement Project proposed by CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company, LLC (CEGT) in the above-referenced docket. CEGT
requests authorization to construct, operate, and abandon pipeline
facilities in Howard, Hempstead, Sevier, and Little River Counties,
Arkansas. The proposed project would replace a segment of CEGT's
existing natural gas system to ensure a reliable natural gas supply of
50 million cubic feet per day to Ashdown, Arkansas.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Line AM-46 Replacement Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the
proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers participated as a cooperating
agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA
analysis. The project would require a permit from the USACE pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 United States Code 1344).
    The proposed Line AM-46 Replacement Project involves the
abandonment of a total of 16.2 miles of CEGT's Line AM-46 and
associated segments; the construction of 16.7 miles of Line AM-204, a
new 10-inch-diameter pipeline in Howard, Hempstead, and Sevier
Counties, Arkansas; and the installation of a pig \1\ launcher at the
beginning of the new pipeline (MP 0.0) and a pig receiver at its
terminus (MP 16.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that is inserted into and moves through
the pipeline, and is used for cleaning the pipeline, internal
inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the
EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC
receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before August 1, 2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP11-78-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. 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 may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commenter a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\2\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP11-78). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Dated: July 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17247 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31234-31236]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14286]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83540; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend the Pilot Period for the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program
Until December 31, 2018

June 28, 2018.
    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 June 20, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period for the Exchange's
Retail Liquidity Program (the ``Retail Liquidity Program'' or the
``Program''), which is currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2018,
until the earlier of approval of the filing to make the Program
permanent or December 31, 2018. The proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period for the Retail
Liquidity Program, currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2018,\3\
until the earlier of approval of the filing to make the Program
permanent or December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82230 (December 7,
2017), 82 FR 58667 (December 13, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In July 2012, the Commission approved the Retail Liquidity Program
on a pilot basis.\4\ The Program is designed to attract retail order
flow to the Exchange, and allows such order flow to receive potential
price improvement. The Program is currently limited to trades occurring
at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. Under the Program,
Retail Liquidity Providers (``RLPs'') are able to provide potential
price improvement in the form of a non-displayed order that is priced
better than the Exchange's best protected bid or offer (``PBBO''),
called a Retail Price Improvement Order (``RPI''). When there is an RPI
in a particular security, the Exchange disseminates an indicator, known
as the Retail Liquidity Identifier, indicating that such interest
exists. Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') can submit a Retail
Order to the Exchange, which would interact, to the extent possible,
with available contra-side RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55) (``RLP Approval
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Retail Liquidity Program was approved by the Commission on a
pilot basis. Pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C(m), the pilot period for the
Program is scheduled to end on June 30, 2018.
Proposal To Extend the Operation of the Program
    The Exchange established the Retail Liquidity Program in an attempt
to attract retail order flow to the Exchange by potentially providing
price improvement to such order flow. The Exchange believes that the
Program promotes competition for retail order flow by allowing Exchange
members to submit RPIs to interact with Retail Orders. Such competition
has the ability to promote efficiency by facilitating the price
discovery process and generating additional investor interest in
trading securities, thereby promoting capital formation. The Exchange
believes that extending the pilot is appropriate because it will allow
the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze data
regarding the Program that the Exchange has committed to provide and
consider the Exchange's filing to make the filing permanent.\5\ As
such, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to extend the
current operation of the Program.\6\ Through this filing, the Exchange
seeks to amend NYSE Rule 107C(m) \7\ and extend the current pilot
period of the Program until the earlier of approval of the filing to
make the Program permanent or December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id. at 40681; see also SR-NYSE-2018-28 (filing to make
Rule 107C, which sets forth the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program,
permanent).
    \6\ Concurrently with this filing, the Exchange has submitted a
request for an extension of the exemption under Regulation NMS Rule
612 previously granted by the Commission that permits it to accept
and rank the undisplayed RPIs. See Letter from Martha Redding, Asst.
Corporate Secretary, NYSE Group, Inc. to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated June 14, 2018.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that the proposed amendment to Rule
107C(m) would amend the current version of Rule 107C(m), which the
Exchange also proposes to amend as part of the Exchange's filing to
make Rule 107C permanent. See SR-NYSE-2018-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending the pilot period for the
Retail Liquidity Program is consistent with these principles because
the Program is reasonably designed to attract retail order flow to the
exchange environment, while helping to ensure that retail investors
benefit from the better price that liquidity providers are willing to
give their orders. Additionally, as previously noted, the competition
promoted by the Program may facilitate the price discovery process and
potentially generate additional investor interest in trading
securities. The extension of the pilot period will allow the Commission
and the Exchange to continue to monitor the Program for its potential
effects on public price discovery, and on the broader market structure.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
simply extends an established pilot program for an additional six
months, thus allowing the Retail Liquidity Program to enhance
competition for retail order flow and contribute to the public price
discovery process.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative

immediately. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, because waiver would allow the pilot period to continue
uninterrupted after its current expiration date of June 30, 2018,
thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result
from temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2018-29 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-29, and should be submitted on
or before July 24, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14286 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65720-65721]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-3-000]

Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on October 6, 2011, Kern River Gas Transmission
Company (Kern River) filed a prior notice application pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Kern
River's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP89-2048, to relocate
approximately 1.2 mile segments of each of Kern River's 36-inch-
diameter mainlines in Salt Lake County, Utah. Kern River proposed the
relocation to accommodate construction of the Mountain View Corridor
highway, a project of the Utah Department of Transportation. Kern River
States that the replacement facilities will have the same throughput
capacity as the current facilities, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may
also be viewed on the Web 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, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michael Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates, Kern River Gas
Transmission Company, 1111 South 103 Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, at
(402) 398-7103, or to Sheldon Byde, Senior Regulatory Analyst, Kern
River Gas Transmission Company, 2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 300,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is

filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. 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.

    Dated: October 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27426 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8611]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX21-2-000]

JVR Energy Park LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on January 29, 2021, pursuant to section 211 of
the Federal Power Act \1\ and section 9.3.3 of the San Diego Gas &
Electric Company (SDG&E) Transmission Owner Tariff, JVR Energy Park LLC
(JVR) filed an application requesting that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) issue an order requiring SDG&E to
provide interconnection and transmission services for JVR's proposed
Kettle Solar One solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage
generating facility project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824j, (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 19, 2021.

    Dated: February 2, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02503 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 43515]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL22-67-000]

Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On July 14, 2022, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL22-67-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation into whether Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.'s Open Access Transmission Tariff is unjust, unreasonable,
unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful with
respect to the formula rate protocols of Grand River Dam Authority
(Grand River).\1\ Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 180 FERC ] 61,022 (2022).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL22-67-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL22-67-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2021), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Grand River's formula rate protocols are contained within
Addendum 13 to Attachment H of the SPP OATT.

    Dated: July 15, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15604 Filed 7-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 249)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69038-69040]
[DOCID:fr30de09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1223; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-114-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    During final Acceptance Test Procedure (ATP), a small oil leak
was discovered on the Spoiler Unload Valve and Rudder Shutoff Valve
bodies. Investigation revealed that a number of valves were
manufactured with an incorrect wall thickness. This thin wall
condition caused cracking, subsequent external weeping and pressure
loss from the subject valves.
    This condition, if not corrected, will cause a loss of hydraulic
fluid and subsequent loss of spoiler and/or rudder control.
* * * * *
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 16,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-1223;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-114-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2009-25R1, dated July 23, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    During final Acceptance Test Procedure (ATP), a small oil leak
was discovered on the Spoiler Unload Valve and Rudder Shutoff Valve
bodies. Investigation revealed that a number of valves were
manufactured with an incorrect wall thickness. This thin wall
condition caused cracking, subsequent external weeping and pressure
loss from the subject valves.
    This condition, if not corrected, will cause a loss of hydraulic
fluid and subsequent loss of spoiler and/or rudder control.
    Revision 1 of this directive mandates a new interval for the
initial inspection, clarifies the time for replacement of the
valve(s) specified in Paragraphs 1.2 and 2.2, and clarifies the
labeling of the inspected valves in Paragraph 3 of this directive.

    Required actions include doing detailed inspections of the left-
hand and right-hand spoiler unload and rudder shutoff valve for leaking
and weeping, replacing discrepant left-hand and right-hand spoiler
unload and rudder shutoff valves with new or serviceable valves, and
eventually replacing all valves having a certain part number. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletins 84-27-37 and 84-27-39, both
dated February 5, 2009. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences between this AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 61 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts would cost about $0
per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $14,640, or $240 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

BOMBARDIER, INC. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2009-
1223; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-114-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 16, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-
401, and DHC-8-402 series airplanes, certificated in any category,
serial numbers 4105 through 4179 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During final Acceptance Test Procedure (ATP), a small oil leak
was discovered on the Spoiler Unload Valve and Rudder Shutoff Valve
bodies. Investigation revealed that a number of valves were
manufactured with an incorrect wall thickness. This thin wall
condition caused cracking, subsequent

external weeping and pressure loss from the subject valves.
    This condition, if not corrected, will cause a loss of hydraulic
fluid and subsequent loss of spoiler and/or rudder control.
    Revision 1 of this directive mandates a new interval for the
initial inspection, clarifies the time for replacement of the
valve(s) specified in Paragraphs 1.2 and 2.2, and clarifies the
labeling of the inspected valves in Paragraph 3 of this directive.
    Required actions include doing detailed inspections of the left-
hand and right-hand spoiler unload and rudder shutoff valve for
leaking and weeping, replacing discrepant left-hand and right-hand
spoiler unload and rudder shutoff valves with new or serviceable
valves, and eventually replacing all valves having a certain part
number.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Do the actions in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers 4105 through 4172
inclusive: Within 750 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, do a detailed inspection of the left-hand and right-hand spoiler
unload valves having part number (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER> for leaking and
weeping, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-37, dated February 5, 2009.
    (i) If any leaking or weeping is found, prior to further flight,
replace the affected spoiler unload valve with a new or serviceable
valve, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-37, dated February 5, 2009.
    (ii) If no leaking and no weeping are found, replace the valves
with new or serviceable valves within 6,000 flight hours after the
initial inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-27-37, dated February 5, 2009.
    (2) For airplanes having serial numbers 4113 through 4179
inclusive: Within 750 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, do a detailed inspection of the left-hand and right-hand rudder
shutoff valves having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> for leaking and weeping, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-27-39, dated February 5, 2009.
    (i) If any leaking or weeping is found, prior to further flight,
replace the affected rudder shutoff valve with a new or serviceable
valve, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-39, dated February 5, 2009.
    (ii) If no leaking and no weeping are found, replace the valves
with new or serviceable valves within 6,000 flight hours after the
initial inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-27-39, dated February 5, 2009.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
spoiler unload valves assembly having (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER>, having a
serial number 0289 through 0424 inclusive, or rudder shutoff valve
having (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER>, having a serial number from 0239 through
0384 inclusive, on any airplane, unless the valve has been inspected
by the manufacturer and labeled with a suffix ``A'' after the serial
number.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York, 11590; telephone 516-
228-7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-25R1,
dated July 23, 2009; Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-37, dated
February 5, 2009; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-39, dated
February 5, 2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-30905 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11065]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1085-000]

Panorama Wind, 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
Panorama Wind, 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 March 14, 2022.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 22, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04131 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


because we all want a success and we don't want -- if possible and we
also don't want undue work if it's not going to go anywhere and I'm just
trying to -- within the incredible time constraints that your office and
everyone else is always under.

		So what does the Board think about that idea?  Is that a feasible
idea?  Is it something that those who are in the know would -- or is it
just my tensions?  Rich.  Rich, of course.  Rich and Dallas and I don't
know if KyungMann, if his expertise goes to this.  Mike.  So I mean
definitely Rich and Dallas I know are interested in Ag Handler things.
So I'm volunteering you and KyungMann and Michael we can talk to if you
feel your expertise is in there.

		DR. SHARP:  Which Rich?

		DR. FISHER:  I'm sorry.  Rich Fenske.  Yes, that's what I was
thinking.

		DR. SHARP:  Alicia.

		DR. FISHER:  And Alicia if she's around.  Absolutely.  I think she's
in Chile.  So I'm not sure.

		DR. KIM:  One question I have is have we seen the SAP's comment on the
issues.

		MR. JORDAN:  Yes, you have.

		DR. KIM:  We have.  Because SAP has a member who expertise is in
survey sampling who is Dr. Steve Heeringa.

		DR. LEWIS:  Dr. Heeringa who presented in May if you may recall.

		DR. FISHER:  So we might -- is he allowed to be a consultant to the
work group?  Well, first, let me just -- is this a good idea or is it
not because I have a particular view as chair about how I would like the
thing to go but that doesn't mean the Board is on -- yes, Sue.

		DR. FISH:  I think this is a great idea.  I think one of the
frustrations I'm sure for your office, Bill, and one of the frustrations
for me is that people work really hard to bring their protocols here.
You guys work really hard to prepare for it and then you come here and
if we have a different opinion, that sends the whole thing back to
square one.  If there's a way to get our concerns, if there's a
regulatorily acceptable way to get our concerns out on the table during
the development process, which is what's going on, it seems it would
smooth the process without compromising our role.  So I think the
earlier that you and the Ag Handlers get input from our experts in
whatever it is, whether it's the actual science or the design and
statistical issues, or whatever that the smoother this process is and
less confrontational, more collaborative and less confrontational and
still meeting our charge of the HSRB.

		DR. KIM:  I second that suggestion and support it.  I think it's a
great idea.  But it has its purview under the regulatory constraint.

		DR. BRIMIJOIN:  I just want to express pessimism.  I think we're
actually struggling to find some positive way of responding to this
very, very difficult situation and I think the Board should be commended
for making the effort and I guess I think any effort to save a major
project, anything that could be done now to save a really important
project is warranted.

		But I am pessimistic.  Unless a group of statisticians can come up
with a brilliant way to do random sampling that's easy to implement and
going to be essentially the same cost or cheaper which seems to me
extremely unlikely, I think at the end of the day we're going to be
faced with a group who is limited, but I have some sympathy for them,
who feels that we're faced with doing something that will delay our
progress substantially in time and cost substantially more and we just
won't do it.  And if on the other hand, neither the statisticians nor
the Board are prepared to recommend any use of data collected by a
nonrandom method, we will have, in fact, a total catastrophe.  But I
fear that our choice is going to be to accept purposive sampling or see
this not happen.

		DR. FISHER:  This was one of the reasons that I had wanted to have
consultants here to see whether or not there's a third path of analysis.
 I think once again it's not my area of expertise, but I think the kinds
of things we've been discussing over the last couple of days with
respect to the data will be good for this, but is limited for that, I
think, I agree with you.  We've all agreed with the EPA about the
necessity of a new dataset.  There is no doubt in anybody's mind.

		At the same time, we don't want a dataset that's not useable.  It's a
lot of expense for everybody involved, a lot of time, a lot of effort, a
lot of commitment and I'm hoping it's not going to be an all or none.
So it seems to me that even saying where the weaknesses might lie in
terms of planning, even a heads-up on that, both in terms of what we're
prepared to know and a heads-up on where we find the weaknesses could be
very beneficial in terms of everybody's expectancies when we get to the
meeting.

		To have it adversarial is just really not what we're all here for.
We're all here for it to help promote good science and ethics and the
kind of data that EPA wants.  So this is just one strategy that might
help that and I think we're hoping that your scenario doesn't take place
and I don't know anything else.

		DR. BRIMIJOIN:  Me too.

		DR. FISHER:  I know and I don't know anything that can be done.  Who?
Which one?  Dallas.

		DR. JOHNSON:  I was just going to say that maybe rather than make a
decision today as to whether this small group will get together, working
group or whatever it is, it would be good to get the reports that Bill
talked about from the consultant at Iowa State, Maiti, and then once we
have those in hand, then we could get some idea as to whether it would
be worth having such a meeting or not.

		DR. FISHER:  That's certainly --

		DR. JOHNSON:  And could do it on the basis of that.

		I also might note that when it came to this idea of purposely versus
random sampling that Alicia -- I was a consultant at that meeting and
Alicia and I didn't quite agree on that issue.  And I think Dr. Kim was
more in line with Alicia than perhaps with me.  But I also served on the
SAP that looked at that study and there were three or four statisticians
there and I'm not sure we all agreed either.

		So I don't know whether you can get a consensus of statisticians and
it would be interesting to see what Dr. Maiti says because if he says it
has to be random sampling, then I don't think we have any place to go.

		DR. FISHER:  That's an interesting point.

		DR. JOHNSON:  If there might be something else that could be done that
would be acceptable, then we have something to talk about.

		DR. FISHER:  And in terms of what the data means.

		DR. JOHNSON:  Right.

		DR. FISHER:  That there might be some meanings that could be attached
to it and  others that it's limited for.  Mike.

		DR. LEBOWITZ:  Yes.  I think this is a good point and I think Dallas'
suggestion is good, that the working group can tell from what they
receive whether it's deserved of follow-up and to what extent or whether
it's a dead issue.

		But in my mind if statisticians disagree, then that's fine also
because it generates hopefully some kind of consensus even to the extent
of saying we don't know which in fact would not be detrimental to the
process and for AHETF or EPA and would allow it to go forward with
certain suggestions that might make data more useful once they were
collected.  So even to that extent, I think it would be worthwhile.

		DR. FISHER:  The critical issue, one of the critical issues for us is
not just the work put in for the design, but it has to come back -- it
cannot go forward until it comes back to us.  And so we also want to
work preventively not to have people put in all this money into a
project to which we say most of it is not useable.  So there's a -- it's
not just the protocol that we're looking at and saying we don't know.
We're also trying in some sense to say if you do this, we will at it as
this is the range of useful data we will look at it.  I don't think we
want to wait either to see how it turns out.  There's something of in
some sense an agreement among people if we reach it that when it came to
us if done as suggested we would be looking at the data as valid for the
area that we said it would be valid for.

		DR. LEBOWITZ:  Yes.  In this regard, you see, I think the discussion
we had on the first day of the NERL document, and it was very useful in
the fact that we heard clearly that a lot of their studies,
observational studies, are small and in fact do not use randomized
populations and how they're used for risk assessment and so forth.  And
I think that's useful to have because even now given the language would
not have occurred but for and including for the subjects' participation
in the study actually indicates to me there's a fair amount of overlap
including between the NERL funded studies of farm workers, etc., that
may or may not have been random.  So there are things that we know we
can learn from that and what they've done in their smaller studies of
the size we're talking about for each scenario.  That's very useful and
we can for our purposes blur the distinction between observational and
intentional vis à vis what's been done before by other parts of the
agency, what's going to be done and how the data are used.  So I think
looking at it that way also would be of benefit and then Fenske and I
can contribute to that from that side of it if not from the statistics.

		DR. FISHER:  So what I would suggest then is that Fenske and Mike and
Dallas and probably Kim if Alicia can't be on it, but we're getting
different viewpoints, you will read the materials.  We'll get the
materials.  We'll have a work group conference call with me and Paul and
Bill to say whether we go forward or not in terms of our own work or
just whether or not it's a clear whatever because this feedback is
important for the Ag Handlers.  It really is.  They don't want to come
here for no reason, you know, after all this hard work in January to
have an a priori negative result.  That's just not fair and that's my
goal.

		And once again, this is not a decision of the Board.  This is merely a
kind of a priori looking at it, making an estimate of what we think the
issues the Board would probably identify, positive and negative, in
terms of what we get.  Okay?

		So that will be sometime in December I guess because we'll get it
after the November whatever date that Bill has, and Bill, of course, is
always so helpful and informative on the calls.  So we welcome that and
anybody else you want to be on the call.  If you want Dr. Maiti on the
call, that would be great too.

		Okay.  So is there anything else?  Paul or Bill.  I'm sorry, Bill.  Is
there anything else?

		MR. JORDAN:  Nothing else.

		DR. FISHER:  Okay.

		DR. LEWIS:  Just a few comments.  Again, I would like to thank members
of the Board and our new members for all the hard work and Dr. Fisher
serving as chair and also members of the public that have observed the
operation deliberations of the Board the past several days.

		Just a couple of announcements about future Board activities.  On
November 13th, we're having a teleconference from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  There's a Federal Register notice that published actually
this week announcing this teleconference for review of the Board's
report from its June 2007 meeting.

		And in terms of the Board's next face-to-face meeting that is
tentatively scheduled for January 15 to 18, 2008 in the Potomac Yard
facility.  As we've done in the past, we schedule four days and we will
let the Board and the public know in terms of whether we'll need all
four days or a shortened amount of time and we'll be announcing in the
Federal Register more specifics about the meeting in terms of topics and
public opportunity to make some comments.  Thank you.

		DR. FISHER:  Thank you everybody.  It's been a pleasure as usual.

		(Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

	NEAL R. GROSS

	COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

	1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433	WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005-3701	www.nealrgross.com

	 page \* arabic 1