Page 1 of 13 Background Document for FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel " The N methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment: Strategies and Methodologies for Exposure Assessment"

December 3, 2004 Key Bridge Holiday Inn Arlington , VA Prepared by: Office of Pesticide Programs US Environmental Protection Agency Page 2 of 13 Table of Contents I. Purpose......................................................................................................... 3 II. Brief History: Cumulative Risk Under the FQPA ........................................... 3 III. Cumulative Risk Assessment of the N Methyl Carbamates....................... 5 A. Overview of Activities to Date.................................................................... 5 1. Determining the Common Mechanism Group........................................ 5 2. Determining the Cumulative Assessment Group ................................... 5 B. On Going Activities.................................................................................... 7 1. Empirical dose response modeling........................................................ 7 2. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model Based Approach........... 8 3. Developing Exposure Scenarios .......................................................... 11 4. Next Steps ........................................................................................... 12 IV. Summary ................................................................................................. 12 V. References.................................................................................................. 13 Page 3 of 13 I. Purpose This document provides the members of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP) and the public with background material and a brief historical summary of cumulative risk assessment for the December 3, 2004 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP) meeting. The document discusses the general framework for the development of the cumulative risk assessment for the Nmethyl carbamate group of pesticides, summarizes the procedures used to identify the N methyl carbamate cumulative assessment group, and describes anticipated " next steps" for the carbamate cumulative risk assessment. The document is designed to provide the regulatory context for the white paper entitled " Designing Exposure Models that Support PBPK/ PBPD Models of Cumulative Risk" developed by the LifeLife Group Inc ( LLG).; EPA is committed to the continual improvement of tools and methodologies available for developing risk assessments; the concepts discussed in this background document and the accompanying white paper are an important component in promoting further progress in the development of methods to evaluate cumulative risk.

The December 3, 2004 meeting of the FIFRA SAP is the first of what will be several meetings concerning the development of a cumulative risk assessment for the N methyl carbamate class of pesticides. A second meeting of the SAP is anticipated to occur in February 2005 and will include a " casestudy example for which advice is sought by the Agency on several issues concerning the N methyl carbamate cumulative risk assessment. The anticipated content of this February SAP is discussed and detailed in Attachment 1 of this document.

II. Brief History: Cumulative Risk Under the FQPA In assessing the potential health risks associated with exposure to pesticides, EPA's attention has historically focused on single pathways of exposure ( e. g., pesticide residues in food, water, or residential/ nonoccupational uses) for individual chemicals, and not on the potential for individuals to be exposed to multiple pesticides by all pathways ( and routes) concurrently. In 1993, a report by the National Research Council ( NRC) made several recommendations on how to improve the assessment of health risks posed by pesticides in the diets of infants and children ( NRC, 1993). One recommendation included consideration of all sources of dietary and non dietary exposures to pesticides and assessment of risks from exposure to multiple pesticides that cause a common toxic effect. The NRC publication provided an example for five organophosphorus pesticides.

Several years after the publication of the NRC report, Congress passed FQPA in 1996 which instructed EPA to base its assessment of the risk posed by the pesticide chemical on aggregate ( i. e., total food, drinking water, residential, and other non occupational) exposure to the pesticide; FQPA also required EPA Page 4 of 13 to consider available information concerning the combined toxic effects to human health that may result from dietary, residential, or other non occupational exposure to chemicals that have a common mechanism of toxicity ( i. e., cumulative risk). OPP has developed a guidance document for developing cumulative risks assessments under FQPA ( USEPA, 2002a). This guidance document states that cumulative risk assessments differ from the single chemical aggregate risk assessments both in focus and intent and that the objectives of a CRA are to:

Define the characteristics of the exposure to a group of chemicals that act by a common mechanism of toxicity

Estimate multichemical, multipathway risks reflecting real world exposure to pesticides, including the changing patterns of residue levels as they relate to differences in location, time, and co occurrence

Identify significant contributors to risk

Characterize the confidence in the conclusions and the uncertainties encountered in the assessment

Facilitate a greater understanding of the potential results of changes in pesticide uses and possible mitigation activities.

Based on the above guidance and principles, OPP released the revised cumulative risk assessment for the organophosphorus pesticides ( OP) in June 2002 ( USEPA 2002b). In this assessment, OPP developed and demonstrated in detail the methods and parameters that should be considered in estimating cumulative risk associated with common mechanism pesticides by multiple pathways of exposure. Various aspects of the hazard and dose response assessment and the exposure analyses were presented to both the SAP and the public for comment numerous times over the course of several years. Both the SAP and the public provided helpful and insightful comments and ideas which were incorporated into the revised documents. OPP is currently developing a cumulative risk assessment for the N methyl carbamate class of pesticides. The SAP meeting scheduled for December 3, 2004 is the first in a series of scientific peer reviews expected for the cumulative risk assessment of the N methyl carbamate pesticides. Page 5 of 13 III. Cumulative Risk Assessment of the N Methyl Carbamates A. Overview of Activities to Date 1. Determining the Common Mechanism Group The first step of producing a cumulative risk assessment is to identify a group of chemicals that produce a common toxic effect( s) by a common mechanism of toxicity. OPP has developed a general framework for identifying the chemicals that belong to that group ( USEPA, 1999). The cumulative guidance states that, in determining this common mechanism group ( CMG), careful attention should be given to a variety of factors including the mechanism of toxicity, the time dimensions of the toxic effects and exposure, and the pesticide exposure patterns and treatment scenarios. Thus, assessing the potential for two or more carbamate pesticides to act by the same mechanism involves the consideration of three principles: 1) they cause the same critical effect( s); 2) they act on the same molecular target at the same target tissue; and 3) they act by the same biochemical mechanism of action perhaps because they share a common toxic intermediate ( Mileson, 1998). OPP found that the three principles were met for the ChE inhibiting carbamates and judged that cholinesterase ( ChE) inhibition was a scientifically accepted mechanism of action for the carbamates which provides a sufficient basis for determining a common mechanism of toxicity for grouping carbamate pesticides ( USEPA, 1999b).

Thus, OPP concluded that the pesticides that comprise the subgroup of N methyl carbamates, based on their structural characteristics and similarity and their shared ability to inhibit acetylcholinesterase by carbamylation of the serine hydroxyl group located in the active site of the enzyme, should be designated as a CMG ( USEPA, 2001).

2. Determining the Cumulative Assessment Group Once the chemical members of a CMG are identified, a necessary follow on step in assessing the cumulative risk of a common mechanism group ( here, the N methyl carbamates) involves selecting a subset of these CMG chemicals as a Cumulative Assessment Group ( CAG). As the risk assessor proceeds with the cumulative assessment, it is important to determine candidate chemicals and uses, routes, and pathways from the CMG that may cause cumulative effects. As described in the Cumulative Guidance ( USEPA 2002a), this subset of CMG Page 6 of 13 chemicals is selected because not all chemicals grouped by common mechanism of toxicity should necessarily be included in a quantitative cumulative risk assessment. For example, initial cumulative assessments should not attempt to quantify risk resulting from chemicals with low hazard potential or from minor exposure scenarios, but should instead focus on those chemicals that are likely to be risk contributors. Specifically, the CAG   and consequently the cumulative risk assessment   should exclude those chemicals, those chemical uses, and those exposure scenarios/ routes/ pathways for which risk and exposure does not contribute in any meaningful or substantive ways to the total cumulative risk picture1. Although a chemical( s) may be removed from the quantification of risk, the rationale for such decisions should be transparently explained. Thus, all chemicals that were grouped by a common mechanism of toxicity should be accounted for ( qualitatively or quantitatively) in the final assessment OPP began the process of determining the members of the CAG by identifying those carbamates which contained the N methyl structural moiety2. OPP then further narrowed the list of the potential CAG candidates by reviewing OPP databases to determine those CMG members that have active food or residential registrations. Those carbamates which have neither food nor residential ( non food) current registrations were eliminated from further consideration for inclusion in the CAG.

Next, OPP investigated the presence, pattern, and magnitudes of residues in the USDA's Pesticide Data Program ( PDP) database through 2002. Those chemicals for which PDP did collect residue data but did not detect any residues were eliminated from consideration from the CAG if there were no residential uses. No chemicals were excluded from the CAG as a result of this analysis. Finally, those chemicals that are currently undergoing phase out or cancellation were removed from the CAG. As was done with the OP assessment, chemicals currently undergoing phase out or cancellation are not included in the CAG since exposures are expected to be zero at some point in the near future.

1 As stated in the Cumulative Guidance , " This focus on likely risk contributors is important ... since a large number of chemicals may increase the complexity and uncertainty with no substantial change in total exposure. ( USEPA, 2002b).

2 Some exceptions were made as described in additional detail in the Federal Register Notice. For example, formetanate hydrochloride was included in this group due to its mode of action rather than its structural similarity to the N methyl carbamates. Page 7 of 13 Based on the above information, OPP's final corrected and updated proposed list of N methyl carbamates which OPP expects to include in the cumulative risk assessment for the carbamate pesticides is as follows:

Aldicarb/ Aldoxycarb Carbaryl Carbofuran Formetanate HCl Methiocarb Methomyl Oxamyl Pirimicarb Propoxur Thiodicarb These carbamates all display ChE inhibiting activity, have current active registrations, and are expected to contribute to the carbamate cumulative risk assessment through quantitatively meaningful exposure scenarios.

B. On Going Activities OPP is currently working with EPA's Office Research and Development to develop the cumulative hazard assessment using different approaches.

1. Empirical dose response modeling Work is on going at the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory ( NHEERL) to develop use empirical approaches to develop Relative Potency Factors ( RPFs) using blood and brain ChE inhibition data from rat toxicology studies. As the mechanism of action for this group is AChE inhibition followed by rapid recovery, this work also entails quantitative modeling of the available data for recovery of ChE inhibition. In the RPF approach, the toxic potency of each chemical is first determined. The determination of toxic potency should, to the extent feasible with available data, be conducted on a uniform basis ( i. e., same measure of potency, for the same effect, from the same test species/ sex using studies of comparable methodology). To determine relative potency, a chemical from the CAG is selected to serve as the index chemical. The index chemical is used as the point of reference for standardizing the common toxicity of the other chemical members of the CAG. Page 8 of 13 2. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model Based Approach In addition to the empirical dose response modeling described above, the cumulative guidance ( USEPA, 2002a) describes other methods including the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic/ dynamic modeling ( PBPK/ PD). As discussed in the cumulative guidance, the level of refinement for each cumulative risk assessment will depend on several factors; specifically included among these is the availability of adequate and appropriate data for the particular common mechanism group of interest.

The FIFRA SAP has previously encouraged OPP to consider using PBPK/ PD models ( FIFRA SAP 2001, 2002) in developing cumulative risk assessments. In December 2003, EPA discussed with the FIFRA SAP aspects of a draft strategy for including PBPK/ PD modeling into its cumulative risk assessment. Key issues included in the December 2003 review included the key data needed to support parameterization of a PBPK/ PD model and the basic structure for a multi chemical model appropriate for the Nmethyl carbamate pesticides. This common mechanism group has been identified as good case study for the application of PBPK/ PD modeling into cumulative risk assessment.

PBPK/ PD models are data and resource intensive. Very few PBPK models have been used by EPA's IRIS program ( Integrated Risk Information System), and OPP has not used such models to support pesticide registration ( or for developing cumulative risk assessments). Scientists from OPP and ORD's National Exposure Research Laboratory ( NERL) are collaborating on the multichemical PBPK/ PD case study in order to gain experience for developing a PBPK/ PD model that is sufficiently robust for regulatory purposes. OPP is developing this case study in a stepwise manner and soliciting scientific peer review at each stage. In this way, the learning and development process is transparent and open to public evaluation and participation. With this case study, EPA can identify critical needs and begin the process of filling these so that in the future the necessary tools may be both available and operational. Tolerance reassessment, including the cumulative risk assessment for the N methyl carbamates, must be completed by August 2006. Given the early stage of development of these models, it is not known to what extent the PBPK model can be used for cumulative risk assessment of the N methyl carbamates. Page 9 of 13 Two of the immediate critical needs that OPP has identified for development and use of these models are the generation of pharmacokinetic data for the pesticides or pesticide classes of interest and the development a " link" or interface between the models currently in use in OPP designed to provide exposure estimates and the PBPK/ PD models currently being developed by ORD and others. These two data needs are discussed in more detail below.

Pharmacokinetic Data Pharmacokinetic ( PK) and pharmacodynamic ( PD) data provide the basis for the development and evaluation of any PBPK/ PD model. OPP has systematically evaluated the availability of PK and PD data for the N methyl carbamates and has determined that for the majority of N methyl carbamates the databases are not sufficiently complete for developing compound specific PBPK/ PD models. PK studies typically submitted to OPP for purposes of pesticide registration were designed to evaluate absorption, distribution in tissues and organs, metabolism and elimination in fluids and excreta. The study protocols, however, were not specifically designed to obtain parameter values needed for developing robust PBPK/ PD models. For example, sample collection is typically not targeted or specified to obtain blood/ tissue partition coefficients or kinetic rates of metabolism or AChE inhibition for particular chemicals that may be identified with the critical metabolic pathways, or mechanisms of action. Instead, the guidelines are designed to account for fractional absorption, distribution of mass equivalents in tissue, and specific identity of major metabolites in fluids and excreta. In addition, the guidelines require absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination ( ADME) studies be initially performed only for the oral ( gavage) route of administration. Dermal absorption studies are only conditionally required. Ideally, oral, dermal and intravenous pharmacokinetic studies are needed to quantitatively distinguish between the kinetics of distribution, metabolism, and excretion from the kinetics of each absorption route. Lastly, radiometric measurements of tissue concentrations are not sufficient to identify the specific metabolites that would constrain the parameter values associated with chemical ADME. Therefore, mass balance of parent chemical and metabolites in tissues must be inferred from excretion data as mass equivalents remaining.

Although relevant PK data are not available for most of the N methyl carbamates at this time, key data are available for carbaryl. As discussed in Use of Pharmacokinetic data to Refine Page 10 of 13 Carbaryl Risk Estimates from Oral and Dermal Exposure ( USEPA, 2004), metabolism studies specifically designed for purposes of evaluating pharmacokinetics and for developing a PBPK/ PD model have been recently performed for the single chemical ( aggregate) assessment of carbaryl. These metabolism and pharmacokinetic studies were proposed by Bayer CropScience in the December 2003 and completed by September 2004 following consultation with OPP. The studies included evaluation of internal dose of carbaryl following oral, intravenous, and dermal exposures in rats using low and high doses. These studies are not discussed in detail here but instead are the subject of a separate FIFRA SAP review scheduled to occur on December 2, 2004. The carbaryl pharmacokinetic studies provided valuable information regarding internal dose( s) and temporal aspects of metabolism and excretion not available from the typical toxicology studies or typical guideline metabolism studies. As shown by the completion of four separate studies within nine months, pharmacokinetic data can developed quickly compared to other typical toxicology studies such as sub chronic and chronic studies Exposure Assessment Models Another critical need identified by OPP regarding the use of PBPK/ PD models in a regulatory setting is the linkage or interface between exposure assessment and PBPK/ PD model( s). Typical probabilistic exposure models such as LifeLine, CARES, and DEEM/ Calendex estimate distributions of exposure for exposure scenarios identified by the model user. For a variety of reasons including computational speed, memory and storage limitations, and perceived utility, the output of these models are typically expressed as distributions of exposure estimates for specified populations instead of specific, exhaustive, or detailed exposure information about each individual in the exposure simulation. In addition, the models are populated by data that is often grouped or summarized in some way or presented in such that necessary details are less readily extracted. For example, the three exposure models in current use by OPP ( Lifeline, CARES, and DEEM/ Calendex) use consumption data derived from the Food Commodity Intake Database ( FCID) which summarizes exposures through food on a daily time step basis, not on a smaller time step which is more relevant for PBPK modeling of the ( short lived) Nmethyl carbamates. In addition, some models only save a fraction of the output records since storage, speed, memory, and other considerations prohibit saving all records from every day of every individuals life. An important advantage of using PBPK and PBPK/ PD models is the capability of estimating internal Page 11 of 13 exposure( s) ( or internal dose) and/ or potential toxic effects following environmental exposures. PBPK/ PD models, as indicated above, can account for dynamic biological processes such as absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion which may be occurring simultaneously depending upon the exposure history of the individual being considered and the toxicological and other characteristics of the chemical being considered. These models can estimate temporal aspects of internal dose( s) at the target site( s). In order to take advantage of the capabilities of PBPK/ PD models, the format and content of output from exposure assessment models must be amenable to inputting information directly into PBPK/ PD models. In other words, the output from the exposure assessment models needs to include specific, detailed information about individuals ( e. g., sex, age, body weight) in addition to their exposure and behavior patterns ( e. g., timing of eating events, timing of outdoor and indoor activities). By including this detailed information, the PBPK/ PD model can appropriately estimate the temporal aspects of internal exposures or internal doses and the potential toxic outcome for different population groups.

This issue   the linkage between exposure assessment and PBPK/ PD models is the topic of the current SAP review and the topic of the conceptual paper developed by the LifeLine Group entitled " Designing Exposure Models that Support PBPK/ PBPD Models of Cumulative Risk."

3. Developing Exposure Scenarios Finally, detailed exposure scenarios for all of the uses remaining for each pesticide in the CAG are developed. This includes determination of potential human exposures by all relevant pathways, durations, and routes that may allow simultaneous exposures, or any sequential exposures among the CAG members that could contribute to the same joint risk of the common toxic effect ( i. e., either by overlapping internal doses or by overlapping toxic effects). The framework for estimating combined exposures is based on exposure to individuals, representing differing attributes of the population ( e. g., human activity patterns, place of residence, age) that link pathways/ route of exposure through scenario building. Cumulative risk values for a given common toxic effect are calculated separately for each exposure route and duration and then combined. To the extent data permit, the temporal and spatial linkages should be maintained for the many factors defining a possible individual exposure. A decision must be made on the relative importance of scenarios and the need for their inclusion in a Page 12 of 13 quantitative assessment, as well as on the populations of interest and locations for evaluation in the assessment. The potential for cooccurrence of possible exposure scenarios is evaluated. Spatial, temporal, and demographic considerations are major factors in determining whether a concurrent exposure is likely to occur. In other words, all exposure events need to occur over a specific interval of time; events need to agree in time, place, and demographic characteristics; and an individual's dose needs to be matched with relevant toxicological values in terms of route and duration.

4. Next Steps As described in detail in Attachment 1 ( Overview of Topics for February 2005 FIFRA SAP meeting), EPA is planning to solicit additional comment from the SAP regarding specific topics related to the cumulative risk assessment for the N methyl carbamates such as hazard assessment, PBPK/ PD modeling for carbaryl, groundwater modeling, and the integration of hazard and exposure. The preliminary cumulative risk assessment for this group of pesticides is expected to be available to public in the summer of 2005.

IV. Summary In 1996, passage of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) imposed OPP the requirement to consider potential human health risks from all pathways of dietary and non dietary exposures to more than one pesticide acting through a common mechanism of toxicity. At each step in the development of its cumulative risk assessment guidance and methodology, OPP has solicited scientific peer review. In 2001, EPA established the N methyl carbamate pesticides as a common mechanism group based on their structural characteristics and also similarity and shared ability to inhibit acetylcholinesterase ( AChE) by carbamylation of the serine hydroxyl group located in the active site of the enzyme. In early 2004, EPA announced the members of the CAG for the N methyl carbamate pesticides. At this time, work is on going to develop the cumulative risk assessment for this group of pesticides. EPA is committed to advancing the methodologies and approaches used in its cumulative risk assessments. The December 3, 2004 SAP meeting is the first in a series of meetings to solicit scientific peer review on different aspects of the cumulative risk assessment for the N methyl carbamates. EPA believes that incorporation and use of pharmacokinetic and mechanistic based modeling approaches will help refine and improve cumulative risk assessments. The current review of the issues discussed in the white paper developed by the LifeLine Group is a key step in the development of such approaches. Page 13 of 13 V. References Mileson, B., JE Chambers, WL Chen, W Dettbarn, M Ehrich, AT Eldefrawi, DW Gaylor, K Hammernik, E Hodgson, AG Karczmar, S Padilla, CN Pope, RJ Richardson, DR Saunders, LP Sheets, LG Sultatos and KB Wallace. Common Mechanism of Toxicity: a case study of organophosphorus pesticides. Toxicological Sciences 41, p. p. 8 20.

NRC ( National Research Council, Committee on Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children) , Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academies Press. 1993.

USEPA ( 1999) Guidance for Identifying Pesticide Chemicals and Other Substances that Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity, www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 1999/ February/ Day 05/ o p2781. htm USEPA, 1999b. " A Science Policy on a Common Mechanism of Toxicity: The Carbamate Pesticides And the Grouping of Carbamate with the Organophosphorus Pesticides;" draft document. August 30, 1999. http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ 1999/ september/ carbam. pdf USEPA, 2001a. Memorandum from Marcia Mulkey to Lois Rossi. " Implementation of the Determinations of a Common Mechanism of Toxicity for N_ Methyl Carbamate Pesticides and for Certain Chloroacetanilide Pesticides." July 12, 2001. http:// www. epa. gov/ oppfead1/ cb/ csb_ page/ updates/ carbamate. pdf USEPA ( 2002a). " Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals That Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity." January 14, 2002. ( 67 FR 2210; January 16, 2002) http:// www. epa. gov/ oppfead1/ trac/ science/# common USEPA ( 2002b). Revised Organophosphorus Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment. Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. June 10, 2002. http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/ rra_ op USEPA ( 2004) Use of Pharmacokinetic Data to Refine Carbaryl Risk Estimates from Oral and Dermal Exposure. November, 2004. http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ index. htm


[Federal Register: June 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33743-33744]
[DOCID:fr12jn06-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

June 6, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12673-000.
    c. Date filed: May 16, 2006.
    d. Applicant: NT Hydro.
    e. Name of Project: Sworinger Reservoir Pumped Storage Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Sworinger
Reservoir and Lower Reservoir, in Modoc and Lassen Counties, California
and Washoe County, Nevada. The penstock and transmission line will
occupy federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Nicholas E. Josten, NT Hydro, 2742 Saint
Charles Ave, Idaho Falls, ID 83404, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) The existing 900-foot-long, 30-foot-high rock filled Sworinger Dam,
(2) the existing Sworinger reservoir to be used as the project's upper
reservoir having a surface area of 2,000 acres with a storage capacity
of 27,000 acre-feet and a

normal water surface elevation of 5,870 feet mean sea level (msl), (3)
the existing Lower Lake which is a natural lake having a surface area
9,000 acres with a storage capacity of 185,000 acre-feet, (4) a
proposed 3,700-foot-long steel pipe lined tunnel, (5) two proposed
16,800-foot-long, 9-foot-diameter steel penstocks, (6) a proposed
powerhouse containing two generating units having a total installed
capacity of 182-megawatts, (7) a proposed 25-mile-long, 345 kilovolt
transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an annual generation of 664.3-gigawatt hours, which would be sold
to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``COMPETING
APPLICATION'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'',
``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-9098 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51536-51537]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2814-025]

Notice of Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review and
Soliciting Scoping Comments; Great Falls Hydroelectric Company, City of
Paterson, New Jersey

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2814-025.
    c. Date Filed: February 28, 2019.
    d. Applicants: Great Falls Hydroelectric Company and the City of
Paterson, New Jersey, as co-licensees.
    e. Name of Project: Great Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Passaic River, near the City of Paterson,
Passaic County, New Jersey. The project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert Gates, Senior Vice President of
Operations, Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, 65 Madison Avenue, Suite 500,
Morristown, NJ 07960;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected]
and/or Ben-David Seligman, 2nd Assistant Corp. Counsel, City of
Paterson, 155 Market Street, Paterson, NJ;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email_
[email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Millard at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: November 23, 2019.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2814-025.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The existing project works consist of: (1) The Society for the
Establishment of Useful Manufactures dam, an overflow granite stone
gravity structure about 315 feet long, with a maximum height of 15 feet
and having a crest elevation of 114.6 feet mean sea level (msl); (2) a
reservoir with a surface area of 202 acres and a storage capacity of
1,415 acre-feet at elevation 114.6 feet msl; (3) a forebay inlet
structure; (4) a headgate control structure containing three trashracks
and three steel gates; (5) three penstocks, each 8.5 feet in diameter
and approximately 55 feet long; (6) a powerhouse containing three
turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 10.95 megawatts;
(7) a 37-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt (kV) underground transmission line
connecting the powerhouse to a 4.16/26.4-kV step-up transformer which
in turn is connected to a 26.4-kV transmission grid via an
approximately 30-foot-long, 26.4-kV underground transmission line; (8)
and appurtenant facilities.
    The Great Falls Project is operated in a run-of-river mode. For the
period 2010 through 2018, the average annual generation at the Great
Falls Project was 17,484 megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for 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, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process.
    The Commission intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA)
on the projects in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action.

Scoping Meetings

    FERC staff will conduct one agency scoping meeting and one public
meeting. The agency scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and
non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the public scoping
meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the
meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the
environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and
locations of these meetings are as follows:

Public Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2019.
    Time: 7:00 p.m. (EDT).
    Place: Rogers Meeting Center, Second Floor.
    Address: 32 Spruce Street, Paterson, New Jersey.

Agency Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, October 24, 2019.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. (EDT).
    Place: Rogers Meeting Center, Second Floor.
    Address: 32 Spruce Street, Paterson, New Jersey.
    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the
scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).

Environmental Site Review

    The applicants and FERC staff will conduct a project Environmental
Site Review beginning at 9:00 a.m. on October 24, 2019. All interested
individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend. All
participants should meet at the Great Falls Project facility, located
at 72 McBride Avenue, Paterson, New Jersey. All participants are
responsible for their own transportation to the site and during the
site visit. Anyone with questions about the Environmental Site Review
should contact Mr. Matt Nini, Relicensing Project Manager for Eagle
Creek, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2)
solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the projects.
Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental expertise
and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the
staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the EA.

    Dated: September 23, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21141 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 20527]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08957]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, May 4,
2017 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit
consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
    Acting Chairman Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Formal orders of investigation; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from
the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: April 27, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08957 Filed 4-28-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28900-28902]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0118]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Inspection, Repair and Maintenance

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval. The information collection concerns records of
inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs). The FMCSA requests approval to revise and renew an ICR
entitled, ``Inspection, Repair and Maintenance.'' FMCSA collects this
information to ensure that motor carriers have adequate documentation
of their inspection, repair, and maintenance programs necessary to
reduce the likelihood of CMV crashes.

DATES: Please send your comments by July 23, 2018. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management

System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0118. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Inspection, Repair and Maintenance.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0003.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 543,061 motor carriers and
5,739,712 drivers.
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies according to the requirements
for specific records.
    Expiration Date: July 31, 2018.
    Frequency of Response: Varies according to requirements for
specific records.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13,791,001 hours [7,558,390 hours
for inspection, repair, and maintenance + 5,536,622 hours for driver
vehicle inspection reports + 194,586 hours for disposition of roadside
inspection reports + 469,414 hours for periodic inspections + 16,904
hours for records of inspector qualifications + 15,085 hours for
records of brake inspector qualifications].
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
authorized under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31502 to prescribe
requirements for, among other things, safety of operations of equipment
of motor carriers that operate CMVs in interstate commerce. Under 49
U.S.C. 31136, the Secretary also has authority to prescribe regulations
to ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded and operated
safely. And under 49 U.S.C. 31142 the Secretary must establish
standards for annual or more frequent inspections of CMVs. The
Secretary's authority to establish improved standards or methods to
ensure brakes and brake systems of CMVs are inspected by appropriate
employees and maintained properly is provided under 49 U.S.C. 31137(g).
    Motor carriers must maintain, or require maintenance of, records
documenting the inspection, repair and maintenance activities performed
on their owned and leased vehicles. There are no prescribed forms.
Electronic recordkeeping is allowed (see 49 CFR 390.31(d)). Documents
requiring a signature must be capable of replication (i.e., photocopy,
facsimile, etc.) in such form that will provide an opportunity for
signature verification upon demand. Also, if electronic recordkeeping
is used, all of the relevant data on the original documents must be
included in the electronic transmission for the records to be valid.
    The motor carrier industry has never questioned the need to keep
CMV maintenance records. In fact, most motor carriers would keep some
records without any regulatory requirements to do so. Records of
inspection, repair, and maintenance; roadside inspection reports;
driver vehicle inspection reports; the documentation of periodic
inspections; the evidence of the qualifications of individuals
performing periodic inspections; and the evidence of brake inspectors'
qualifications contain the minimum amount of information necessary to
document that a motor carrier has established a system of inspection,
repair, and maintenance for its equipment which meets the standards in
49 CFR part 396.
    FMCSA and its representatives use these records to verify motor
carriers' compliance with the inspection, repair, and maintenance
standards in part 396. This ICR supports the Department of
Transportation's strategic goal of safety. The ICR also ensures that
motor carriers have adequate records to document the inspection,
repair, and maintenance of their CMVs, and to ensure that adequate
measures are taken to keep their CMVs in safe and proper operating
condition at all times. Compliance with the inspection, repair, and
maintenance regulations helps to reduce the likelihood of accidents
attributable, in whole or in part, to the mechanical condition of the
CMV.
    The Agency does not intend to revise the substantive contents of
this information collection, the frequency of information collection,
or how it uses the information. Because the previous four updates to
this information collection were developed in conjunction with
rulemaking actions, only those sections of the information collection
affected by the specific rulemaking changes were amended during the
previous four updates and a comprehensive update of the information
collection has not been done since 2006. This renewal includes updated
data regarding the number of motor carriers subject to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, vehicle counts, inspections, and
other underlying data used to estimate the total burden hours. In
addition, this revision corrects the manner in which: (1) The burden
associated with routine inspection, repair and maintenance records is
calculated, by including non-powered CMVs in addition to power units;
and (2) the burden associated with periodic inspection records is
calculated, by using only the records associated with the once-per-year
inspection conducted in accordance with 49 CFR Chapter III, Subchapter
B, Appendix G. Finally, this revision corrects the calculation of the
burden associated with Driver-Vehicle Inspection Reports (DVIRs) by
including the 30 seconds required for motor carrier certification of
corrective action for defect DVIRs that was inadvertently omitted in
the calculation of this estimate in the December 2014 No-Defect DVIR
rule.
    If the recordkeeping were required to be completed less frequently,
it would greatly hinder the ability of FMCSA and State officials and
representatives to ascertain that CMVs are satisfactorily maintained.
The timely documentation of CMV inspection, repair, and maintenance
enables FMCSA and State officials to evaluate the present state of a
motor carrier's CMV maintenance program and to check the current level
of regulatory compliance at any point in a carrier's maintenance
schedule or program.
    The FMCSA has identified periodic inspection standards of 22
States, the District of Columbia, the Alabama Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Board, 10 Canadian Provinces, and one Canadian Territory that are
comparable to, or as effective as, the Federal periodic inspection
requirements. The FMCSA does not require Federal periodic inspections
and the related recordkeeping for motor carriers that comply with these
equivalent periodic inspection programs. The FMCSA is not aware of any
other duplicative standards or recordkeeping

requirements that apply to motor carriers.
    The FMCSA does not employ this collection of information for
statistical use.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: June 15,
2018.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2018-13319 Filed 6-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 65113]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22712]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90129; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Delete the FINRA Order Audit Trail
System (OATS) Rules

October 8, 2020.
    On August 14, 2020, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposal to eliminate the Order Audit Trail System (``OATS'') rules in
the FINRA Rule 7400 Series and FINRA Rule 4554 (Alternative Trading
Systems--Recording and Reporting Requirements of Order and Execution
Information for NMS Stocks) once members are effectively reporting to
the consolidated audit trail (``CAT'') and the CAT's accuracy and
reliability meet certain standards. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 1, 2020.\3\
The Commission has received three comments on the proposed rule
change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89679 (August 26,
2020), 85 FR 54461.
    \4\ See Letters from William J. Leahy, Head of Regulatory
Compliance, Refinitiv Wealth Management, September 22, 2020; Howard
Meyerson, Managing Director, Financial Information Forum, dated
September 22, 2020; and Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equity &
Options Market Structure, dated September 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of the notice of the filing of a proposed rule change,
or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed
rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for this
proposed rule change is October 16, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ the Commission designates November 30, 2020 as the date by
which the Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-FINRA-2020-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22712 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 50346]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4659-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Minnesota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4659-DR), dated July 13,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued July 13, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 13, 2022, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Minnesota resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and
flooding during the period of April 22 to June 15, 2022, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Minnesota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Brian F. Schiller, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Minnesota have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Beltrami, Clearwater, Cook, Kittson, Koochiching, Lake, Lake of
the Woods, Mahnomen, Marshall, Norman, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake,
Roseau, and St. Louis Counties and the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa,
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Red Lake Nation, and the White Earth
Nation for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Minnesota are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard
Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-17552 Filed 8-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71888-71889]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27453]

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

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: RP22-409-000.
    Applicants: Houston Pipe Line Company LP, Enable Oklahoma
Intrastate Transmission, LLC, Southwest Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Houston Pipe Line Company LP
submits tariff filing per 154.203: Notice of Change in Circumstance to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20211213-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-410-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Action Alert and OFO
Provisions Filing to be effective 1/13/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20211213-5165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-411-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing to Remove Tariff
Language Related to Bistineau Storage Field to be effective 1/17/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20211213-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-412-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Abandon Multiple X-Rate Schedules
Compliance Filing to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20211214-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/21.

    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.
    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: December 14, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27453 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P