[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64187-64189]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1644]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1644, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements

outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated
to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the
FIRM and FIS report become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: August 18, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    I. Watershed-Based Studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Lower Sabine Watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Beauregard Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Merryville.....................  Town Hall, 1009 State Highway
                                          110 West, Merryville, LA
                                          70653.
Unincorporated Areas of Beauregard       Beauregard Parish Department of
 Parish.                                  Public Works, 201 West 2nd
                                          Street, DeRidder, LA 70634.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Flagler County, Florida and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 11-04-1996S Preliminary Date: March 15, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bunnell........................  City Hall, 201 West Moody
                                          Boulevard, Bunnell, FL 32110.
City of Flagler Beach..................  City Hall, 105 South 2nd
                                          Street, Flagler Beach, FL
                                          32136.
City of Palm Coast.....................  City Hall, 160 Lake Avenue,
                                          Palm Coast, FL 32164.
Town of Beverly Beach..................  Town Hall, 2735 North
                                          Oceanshore Boulevard, Beverly
                                          Beach, FL 32136.
Town of Marineland.....................  Marineland Town Office, 9507
                                          North Oceanshore Boulevard,
                                          St. Augustine, FL 32080.
Unincorporated Areas of Flagler County.  Flagler County Planning and
                                          Zoning Department, 1769 East
                                          Moody Boulevard, Building 2,
                                          Bunnell, FL 32110.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Noble County, Oklahoma and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project: 15-06-1789S Preliminary Date: February 19, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Perry..........................  City Hall, 622 Cedar Street,
                                          Perry, OK 73077.
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma.......  Otoe-Missouria Tribe of
                                          Oklahoma Tribal Headquarters,
                                          8151 Highway 177, Red Rock, OK
                                          74651.
Town of Billings.......................  Town Hall, 122 West Main
                                          Street, Billings, OK 74630.
Town of Marland........................  City Hall, 306 North Main
                                          Street, Marland, OK 74644.
Town of Red Rock.......................  City Hall, 300 Lillie Street,
                                          Red Rock, OK 74651.
Tribe of Ponca Indians of Oklahoma.....  Tribe of Ponca Indians of
                                          Oklahoma Tribal Affairs
                                          Building, 20 White Eagle
                                          Drive, Ponca City, OK 74601.
Unincorporated Areas of Noble County...  Noble County Courthouse, 300
                                          Courthouse Drive #1, Perry, OK
                                          73077.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-22473 Filed 9-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28300-28301]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0124]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on September 3, 2010, at 75 FR 54217.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kil-Jae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., W52-232, NPO-520, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and e-mail address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, NHTSA previously conducted a public meeting and opened a
docket for a 60-day comment period. Based upon comments at the public
meeting and to the docket, NHTSA revised its research plan. This notice
announces that the ICR abstracted below has been forwarded to OMB for
review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information
collections and their expected burden. This is a request for new
collection.
    Title: 49 CFR 575--Consumer Information Regulations (section 106)
Qualitative Research--Focus Groups.
    OMB Control Number: Not Assigned.
    Form Number: None.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Affected Public: Passenger vehicle tire consumers and tire
retailers.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval
date.
    Abstract: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),
enacted in December 2007, included a requirement that NHTSA develop a
national tire fuel efficiency program to educate consumers about the
effect of tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety and durability. A
critical step in developing the consumer information program is to
conduct proper market research to understand consumers' knowledge of
tire maintenance and performance, understand the tire purchase process
from both the consumer and retailer's perspectives, evaluate
comprehension of ratings, explore the clarity, meaningfulness and the
likely resulting behaviors, and evaluate the creative and the channels
for communication. NHTSA proposes a multi-phased research project to
gather the data and apply analyses and results from the project to
develop the consumer information program. The entire research plan is
posted to this docket.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 108.
    Number of Respondents: 72.
    NHTSA will conduct two research phases. For the first phase, NHTSA
will conduct two types of qualitative research. One research project
will consist of two (2) focus groups in three (3) cities. Each group
will have eight (8) participants and will last two (2) hours for a
total of 96 participant hours. (72 potential respondents will be
contacted for initial screening calls to determine the actual focus
group participants. Calls should not be more than 10 minutes each for
an estimated 12 burden hours.) This is the project which is the subject
of this notice. For the second research project in this phase, NHTSA
will conduct on-site interviews at various tire retailers. NHTSA
anticipates 30 respondents, with each interview taking 30 minutes for a
total of approximately 15 participant hours. This project is addressed
by a separate notice published today. The results of both projects in
this research phase will be used to finalize the content of an online
survey NHTSA will conduct in the second research phase.
    On September 3, 2010 (75 FR 54217), NHTSA published the required
60-day notice requesting comments on both projects in the first
research phase.\1\ NHTSA received six comments in response to this
notice: One unsigned, one each from LANXESS Corporation, Tire Industry
Association (TIA), and Michelin North America and two from Rubber
Manufacturers Association (RMA). LANXESS Corporation (a specialty
chemicals company) and TIA indicated their support of this information
collection request, noting the importance of providing consumers with
related information, while the unsigned comment was opposed to this
spending, but did not provide a reason why. RMA offered detailed
comments on the contents of the research package. A more extensive
discussion of the comments received and changes NHTSA has made to the
research plan can be found in the supporting

statement placed in the docket for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA published an amendment to this notice on September 27,
2010 (75 FR 59319) and extended the comment period in a notice
published on November 24, 2010 (75 FR 71789).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated annual burden hour for the focus groups is 108 hours.
Based on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' median hourly wage (all
occupations) in the May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates, NHTSA estimates that it will take an average of $15.95 per
hour for professional and clerical staff to gather data, distribute and
print material. Therefore, the agency estimates that the cost
associated with the burden hours is $1,722.60 ($15.95 per hour x 108
burden hours).

Gregory A. Walter,
Senior Associate Administrator, Policy and Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-11974 Filed 5-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 19498-19499]
[DOCID:fr10ap08-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RR07-16-003]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

April 3, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 1, 2008, The North American Electric
Reliability Corporation filed additional compliance filings in response
to the Commission's October 18, 2007, Order, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, Order Conditionally Accepting 2008 Business
Plan and Budget if the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
and Ordering Compliance Filings, 121 FERC ] 61,057 (2007) (2008 ERO
Budget Order).
    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, 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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 22, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7598 Filed 4-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33217-33218]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15199]

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

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 Number: PR18-64-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH Rates effective
June 29 2018.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>45.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-966-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Pioneer July 2018) to be effective 7/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

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

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15199 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 75144]
[DOCID:fr10de08-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 59056]

Order Granting Registration of Egan-Jones Rating Company To Add
Two Additional Classes of Credit Ratings

December 4, 2008.
    Egan-Jones Rating Company, a nationally recognized statistical
rating organization (``NRSRO''), furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an application under Section 15E
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') to register
for the two classes of credit ratings described in clauses (iv) and (v)
of Section 3(a)(62)(B) of the Exchange Act. The Commission finds that
the application furnished by Egan-Jones Rating Company is in the form
required by Exchange Act Section 15E, Exchange Act Rule 17g-1 (17 CFR
240.17g-1), and Form NRSRO (17 CFR 249b.300).
    Based on the application, the Commission finds that the
requirements of Section 15E of the Exchange Act are satisfied.
    Accordingly,
    It Is Ordered, under paragraph (a)(2) of Section 15E of the
Exchange Act, that the registration of Egan-Jones Rating Company with
the Commission for the classes of credit ratings described in clauses
(iv) and (v) of Section 3(a)(62)(B) of the Exchange Act is granted.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29157 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality Fuel Manufacturer Notification for Motor Vehicle Fuel Form Approval OMB No. 2060 0150 Approval Expires 01/ 31/ 2004 Leave Blank 1. Brand name( s) of the motor vehicle fuel covered by this notification ( list):

2. Company Name: 3. Company ID:

4. Address:

5. Type of Fuel ( Check Only One)

g f e d c ( a) Unleaded Premium Gasoline g f e d c ( b) Unleaded Regular Gasoline g f e d c ( c) Unleaded Midgrade Gasoline g f e d c ( d) Grade 1 Diesel g f e d c ( e) Grade 2 Diesel g f e d c ( f) Other ( Specify):

6. Fuel Properties, to the extent known: Percent by weight Methods of Analysis ( a) through ( f) only Highest Lowest Average ( a) Aromatics ( b) Olefins ( c) Saturates ( d) Polynuclear Organic Material ( e) Sulfur ( f) Trace Elements Gasoline: ( g) Reid Vapor Pressure ( kPa or psi)

( h) Distillation: 10% Point ( ° C)

( i) Distillation: End Point ( ° C)

( j) Research Octane Number ( k) Motor Octane Number Diesel Fuel: ( I) Distillation: 90% Point ( ° C)

( m) Distillation: End Point ( ° C)

( n) Cetane Number or Index Page 1 of 5 EPA Form 3520 12 ( 06 2003)  Fuel Manufacturer Notification for Motor Vehicle Fuel Page 2 of 5 EPA Form 3520 12 ( 06 2003)  Fuel Manufacturer Notification for Motor Vehicle Fuel 8. Do you know of any analytical technique that can be used to detect the presence of any of the reported additives in this fuel and/ or measure their concentration therein?

g f e d c No g f e d c Yes If " Yes," attach separate sheet( s) providing the information.

9. Do you have any information developed by or for you concerning the mechanisms of action of any of the additives reported; reactions between the additives and the motor vehicle fuel; the identification and/ or measurement of the emission products of the additives when used in the motor vehicle fuel; the effects of the additives on all emissions; the toxicity and any other public health or welfare effects of the emission products of the additives; and/ or the effects of the emission products of the gasoline additives on the performance of emission control devices or systems?

g f e d c No g f e d c Yes If " Yes," attach separate sheet( s) providing summaries and a description of the test procedures used in obtaining the information. 10. To the nearest percent, estimated for the third year of production, enter the percent of sales by Petroleum Administration for Defense District ( PADD) for the motor vehicle fuel. See instructions for the states in each PADD.

PADD1 PADD2 PADD3 PADD4 PADD5 11. Is this fuel derived only from conventional petroleum, heavy oil deposits, coal, tar sands, and/ or oil sands?

g f e d c Yes g f e d c No 12. Small Business Provisions  40 CFR 79.58( d). ( See instructions)

A manufacturer of a baseline or nonbaseline fuel whose average of the previous three years annual sales revenue is less than $ 50 million is exempt from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 health effects testing requirements. A manufacturer of an atypical fuel whose average of the previous three years annual sales revenue is less than $ 10 million is exempt from the Tier 2 requirements. If you believe that you qualify for an exemption, enter below your sales revenue for each of the previous three years and the average.

( Note: In cases where subsidiary, divisional, or other complex business arrangements exist, the business entity to which this sales level pertains is the parent company with ultimate ownership. The " ultimate" parent is defined as the uppermost headquarters or topmost company encompassing all related parents, subsidiaries, divisions, branches, or other operating units. This definition follows that used by the Small Business Administration. It also helps to ensure that a company will not subdivide merely to become eligible for an exemption.)

Annual sales revenue 3 years ago: $

Annual sales revenue 2 years ago: $

Annual sales revenue 1 year ago: $

Average of above: $

Is the above average for the company named in Item 2?

g f e d c Yes g f e d c No If " No," complete the following:

Name of the parent company with ultimate ownership:

Address:

Contact Name: Phone:

Title: Email: Page 3 of 5 EPA Form 3520 12 ( 06 2003)  Fuel Manufacturer Notification for Motor Vehicle Fuel 13. Grouping Information  If you do not qualify for a small business provision, you must be a member of a testing group appropriate for your fuel or supply the appropriate health effects test information.

This fuel is covered by the following testing group:

Group description:

Organizing entity:

Contact person:

Telephone: Fax:

Email:

Address: OR I have attached the appropriate information.

g f e d c Yes g f e d c No If " No," attach an explanation.

14. Confidential Business Information  You may assert a business confidentiality claim for certain items. If no claim is made, the information may be made available to the public without further notice. All questions of confidentiality will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR 2.

Do you wish to assert a claim of confidentiality for any of items 6 through 12?

g f e d c No g f e d c Yes If " Yes," indicate " Yes" or " No" for each item below:

Item 6: g f e d c Yes g f e d c No Item 7: g f e d c Yes g f e d c No Item 8: g f e d c Yes g f e d c No Item 9: g f e d c Yes g f e d c No Item 10: g f e d c Yes g f e d c No Item 11: g f e d c Yes g f e d c No Item 12: g f e d c Yes g f e d c No 15. Attached Information  Are attachments included with this notification?

g f e d c No g f e d c Yes If " Yes," list below: Page 4 of 5 EPA Form 3520 12 ( 06 2003)  Fuel Manufacturer Notification for Motor Vehicle Fuel 16. Certification To the best of my knowledge, the above is complete and correct.

I am authorized by the manufacturer to submit this notification.

As per 40 CFR 79.11( g), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency would be notified in writing if certain information in this notification were to change.

This fuel manufacturer will not represent, directly or indirectly, in any notice, circular, letter, or other written communication, or any written, oral, or pictorial notice, or other announcement in any publication or by radio or television, that registration of this fuel constitutes endorsement, certification, or approval by any agency of the United States.

Signature:

Date:

Name of Signer ( print): Title:

Telephone: Fax:

E mail:

Comments:

Mail the completed form to:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Attn: Fuel Registration/ Suite L  103 Mail Code  6406J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 0001 Telephone ( 202) 564  9754 Fax ( 202) 565 2153 email: caldwell. jim@ epa. gov, fernandes. joseph@ epa. gov This office is operated by a contractor for the EPA. or, via courier:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Attn: Fuel Registration/ Suite L  103 Mail Code  6406J 501 Third Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Page 5 of 5 EPA Form 3520 12 ( 06 2003)  Fuel Manufacturer Notification for Motor Vehicle Fuel


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		September 18, 2014

TO:		Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Gavin Lau, EPA Region 2/CASD-APB

SUBJECT:	September 4, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 4, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

New York Independent System Operator:

Mr. Peter Carney
Mr. Benjamin Cohen
Ms. Mollie Lampi
Mr. Cuong Nyugen

Questions Submitted for September 4, 2014 call

   1. Does the proposed rule allow NY to include existing hydro generators as affected entities in the state plan and therefore be included in the calculation used to meet the state goals?
   2. EPA uses nameplate capacity to compute the capacity factor which in the case of the NY NGCC fleet underestimates the capacity factor used by NYISO based on the summer and winter Demonstrated Maximum Net Capability (DMNC) values by at least 15%. Is it possible to accept this different definition for computing capacity factor, basing it on DMNC instead of nameplate?
   3. Under the NGCC redispatch building block the generation from OGST would decrease from 12,503 GWh to 83 GWh by 2020 and beyond. This value is concerning from a reliability standpoint given historic and future projections and constraints of generation and capacity makeup in downstate NY. For example, during Q1 of 2014 about 3,000 GWh was produced from oil firing at OGST generators to meet increased demand during the cold late winter experienced throughout much of the Northeast. If this increased generation offsets assumed NGCC generation we would need an additional 4,250 GWh of zero emissions generation to offset the increased oil burn using the equation in the goal computation TSD. Will the EPA consider some consolation for reliability concerns such as this in the goal computation procedure?
   4. NY has made significant strides in emission reductions, particularly since 2005, and also since 2009 under RGGI (of which NY comprises approximately 1/3 of the 9 state market), by taking 2012 as a baseline year NY is precluded from getting credit as an early adopter of lower carbon policies and programs. Has the EPA considered including reductions from early adoption activities and how would these be added to the current calculation?
   5. The proposed rule discusses different ways to account for interstate transport of electricity and accounting of the associated emissions, however does not address the international import or export with our neighboring countries. NY imports power from Canada, much of it hydropower; however it is not clear how we should account for imported power in the state plan and to meet our goal?
   6. A portion of the power that flows through NY is not ultimately consumed in NY, but generally there will be a measureable difference between wheeled imports and exports due to in-state transmission losses, which would show up as a net consumption charged to NY. How would transmission losses from wheeled power be handled under the proposal and would we need to discuss ways to account for the associated emissions?
   7. Our internal modeling shows vastly different zonal generation projections for upstate and downstate when compared to the output from the IPM modeling done by EPA. EPA overestimates generation (nearly by a factor of two) in zone J and K compared to our internal models and underestimates generation particularly in zone C&E and F. This difference, averaging nearly 20,000 GWh/yr from 2016-2030, highlights the need for a better representation of NYCA in EPAs model to more accurately reflect resource and transmission constraints moving forward. It appears this difference stems from the difficulty in dynamic limit modeling of the most constrained interfaces in central east and upstate downstate, which are not captured in the IPM model. Can you discuss how these interfaces are modeled and what type of revisions would be possible?
   8. EPA has projected the national fleet wide average of nuclear plants which are "at-risk" of retirement and imposing on each state with nuclear capacity in 2012 a 5.8% requirement. It is not clear which of the NY nuclear units would be operated differently to make up (or maintain) the associated zero emission generation of 2,411 GWh. At present it is unclear to the NYISO how this applies to NYs nuclear fleet or if it would need to be offset by additional RE generation. Would this require specific nuclear units to be considered an affected entity in the state plan?
   9. If nuclear plants were to close, would this action add a significant generation requirement to make up for the loss of energy through additional zero emission generation?
   10. Using 2012 as a baseline year raises several issues for NY. First, at the end of 2012 Superstorm Sandy had significant impact on electrical grid operations in the demand centers of NY for a relatively extended period of time. The NYISO has estimated that an approximate 500 GWh of energy and 7.5 GW of capacity was impacted in 2012 alone. Is there openness to accepting other timeframes as a baseline if anomalous events make the data uncharacteristic of past performance?
   11. The large zero emission generation associated with existing hydro should be included in the state goal setting. Is this something that the EPA has discussed and how would it be accounted for in the goal setting procedure if acceptable?
   12. How would emission and generation at units that were offline during a portion of 2012 and return after a repowering or fuel conversion project count towards the state goals?
   13. For states with final rate goals below the value of the nominal emission rate of NGCC plants (934 lbs/MWh in NY), increased dependence on NGCC units will not ultimately achieve emission rate reductions that would allow compliance under the proposed rule. How can we reconcile then increasing dependence on NGCC for states with goals below their emission rate?
   14. In the proposed definition of affected units, Section 60.5795 we seek several clarifications;
         a. Is the base load rating of 250MMBtu/hr criterion in (b)(1) and (2) both on a heat input of the fuel basis? This is explicit in (b)(1) but perhaps unclear in (b)(2). What is meant by "base load rating"?
         b. Is it the case that stationary combustion turbines that have greater than 10% heat input by fossil fuel but less than 90% from natural gas would not be considered affected units under the proposed rule based on the wording of (b)(2)? Was this the intent of the EPA when drafting the proposed rule?
         c. What is the definition of "utility distribution system" as used in (b)(1) and (2)?
   15. For net importing states only fractional credit is given to EE measures resulting in demand destruction in the state based on the percent of instate generation compared to sales. On the other hand net exporting states do not receive credit for these EE reductions either. What happens to the credit for this reduced demand in net importing states?
   16. How would a newly constructed NGCC plant's emissions count towards the state goal?

   17.  IPM modeling done by EPA
         a. General
                 i. Did this study do any historical benchmark to tune the model before doing forecast? If so what year was it benchmarked against?
                 ii. What is the source for the load forecast?
                 iii. What is the source for the emission and fuel forecasts?
         b. Transmissions constraints
                 i. Details on each of the transmission paths in Table 3-4 of the IPM Base Case Documentation, i.e. what individual transmission lines are in each of the path "From" to "To"
                 ii. What is the source for these path limits?
                 iii. Are the values in this table normal transfer limits or emergency transfer limits, and in what year?
                 iv. Is the IPM model reflecting transmission build-out in each of the regions in the forecast? If so what are the inclusion rules?
         c. Generation
                 i. To what level of details (e.g. heat rate, emission rate, outage rate, unit capacity) does the IPM model the generators? Does it do both security constraint unit commitment and economic dispatch?
                 ii. Is it a full year 8760 hourly chronological model or typical month/week/day model?
                 iii. How does the IPM model energy sources like hydro, pumped storage, wind, and solar?
                 iv. What are the criteria for generation build-out to maintain reliability in the bulk system in the forecast period? if so what are the inclusion rules?

8-15-2012: I am looking for some information to help compute the demand-side energy efficiency building block. On Page 5-40 of the Greenhouse Gas Abatement TSD you show an example calculation for South Carolina, which has a 1.1% annual growth rate (for SERC). I have tried to reproduce this number from the AEO 2013 data but have been unsuccessful. Could you please provide me with the regional growth rates for all the regions or explain how you were able to obtain 1.1% annual Growth rate for SERC.
8-18-2012: You mentioned in Section 2 of the Goal Computation TSD that EPA had considered averaging fossil fuel generation and emission rates over other baseline periods, namely 2009-2012, but found that there was little difference among these baseline years due to the rate-based nature of the goal. Could you provide the data to back up this finding; the emission and generation data used for 2009-2012.
8-19-2012: I am trying to look at different baseline year calculations using available eGRID data from 2010 however am lacking unit level data for eGRID from 2012 that the EPA used to compute the historic generation and emissions at the unit level from affected units. Would it be possible to share the 2012 eGRID data set used to compute the baseline values for 2012 so that I can compare my methods to those used by the EPA?


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (7/1/2007)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: Julie Chao, PM Team 1; (703)
308-8735>

<Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC  27419>

<[Petition number 9F7582]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([petition number 9F7582]) from

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC  27419

proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.565 by
establishing a tolerance for residues of	thiamethoxam
{3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-ox
adiazin-4-imine}(CAS Reg. No. 153719-23-4) and its metabolite
[N-(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-N’-methyl-N’-nitro-guanidine] in or
on onion, dry bulb (0.03 ppm). EPA has determined that the petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism.  The primary metabolic pathways of thiamethoxam
in plants (corn, rice, pears, and cucumbers) were similar to those
described for animals, with certain extensions of the pathway in plants.
 Parent compound and CGA-322704 were the major residues in all crops.
The metabolism of thiamethoxam in plants and animals is understood for
the purposes of the proposed tolerance.  Parent thiamethoxam and the
metabolite, CGA-322704, are the residues of concern for tolerance
setting purposes.>

<	2. Analytical method. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has submitted
practical analytical methodology for detecting and measuring levels of
thiamethoxam in or on raw agricultural commodities.  This method is
based on crop specific cleanup procedures and determination by liquid
chromatography with either UV or MS detections.  The limit of detection
(LOD) for each analyte of this method is 1.25 ng injected for samples
analyzed by UV and 0.25 ng injected for samples analyzed by MS, and the
limit of quantification (LOQ) is 0.005 ppm for milk and juices, and 0.01
ppm for all other substrates.>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has submitted
complete residue data for thiamethoxam on dry bulb onions.>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  The acute oral LD50 for thiamethoxam in the rat is
1563 mg/kg body weight.  The acute dermal LD50 of thiamethoxam is >2000
mg/kg body weight.  Thiamethoxam is non-toxic at atmospheric
concentrations of 3.72 mg/l.  Thiamthoxam is minimally irritating to the
eye, non-irritating to skin and is not a dermal sensitizer.

In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats (OPPTS 870.6200a), the NOAEL was
100 mg/kg/day with a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day based on drooped palpebral
closure, decrease in rectal temperature and locomotor activity and
increase in forelimb grip strenght (males only).  At higher dose levels,
mortality, abnormal body tone, ptosis, impaired respiration, tremors,
longer latency to first step in the open field, crouched over posture,
gait impairment, hypo-arousal, decreased number of rears, uncoordinated
landing during the righting reflex test, slight lacrimation (females
only) and higher mean average input stimulus value in the auditory
startle response test (males only).>

<	2. Genotoxicty. In gene mutation studies with S. typhimurium and E.
coli (OPPTS 870.5100 and 870.5265, there was no evidence of gene
mutation when tested up to 5000 g/plate and there was no evidence of
cytoxicity.

In a gene mutation study with chinese hamster V79 cells at HGPRT focus
(OPPTS 870.5300) there was no evidence of gene mutation when tested up
to the solubility limit.

In a CHO cell cytogenetics study (OPPTS 870.5375) there was no evidence
of chromosomal aberrations when tested up to cytotoxic or solubility
limit concentrations.

An in vivo mouse bonemarrow micronucleus study (OPPTS 870.5395) was
negative when tested upto levels of toxicity in whole animals; however,
no evidence of target cell cytoxicity.  A UDS assay (OPPTS 870.5550) was
negative when tested up to precipitating concentrations.>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A prenatal developmental
study in the rat (OPPTS 870.3700a) resulted in Maternal and
Developmental NOAELs of 30 mg/kg/day and 200 mg/kg/day, respectively.
The maternal LOAEL is 200 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, body
weight gain and food consumption.  The developmental LOAEL was 750
mg/kg/day based on decreased fetal body weight and an increased
incidenceof skeletal anomalies.

A prenatal developmental study in the rabbit (OPPTS 870.3700b) resulted
in maternal and developmental NOAELs of 50 mg/kg/day.  The maternal and
develomental LOAEL is 150 mg/kg/day.  The maternal LOAEL is based on
maternal deaths, hemorrhagic discharge, decreased body weight and food
intake during the dosing period.  The developmental LOAEL is based on
decreased fetal body weights, increased incidence of post-implantation
loss and a slight increase in the incidence of skeletal
anomalies/variations.

In a reproduction and fertility effects study in rats (OPPTS 870.3800)
the Parental/sytemic NOAEL is 1.84 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day;
the reproductive NOAEL is 0.61 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day and
the offspring NOAEL is 61.25 (males), 79.20 (females) mg/kg/day.  The
parental /sytemic LOAEL is 61.25 (males), not determined (females)
mg/kg/day based on inscreased incidence of hyaline change in renal
tubules in F0 and F1 males.  The reproductive LOAEL is 1.84 (males), not
determined (females) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence and severity
of tubular atrophy observed in testes of the F1 generation males.  The
offspring LOAEL is 158.32 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day based on
reduced body weight gain during lactation period in all litters.>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. A 90 day oral toxicity study in rats (OPPTS
870.3100) resulted in a NOAEL of 1.74 (males, 92.5 (females) mg/kg/day.
The LOAEL is 17.4 (male), 182.1 (female) mg/kg/day based on increased
incidence of hyaline change or renal tubules epithelium (males), fatty
change in adrenal gland of females, liver changes in females, all at the
LOAEL.

A 90 day oral toxicity in mice (OPPTS 870.3100) resulted in a NOAEL of
1.41 (males, 19.2 (females) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 14.3 (male) 231
(female) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of hepatocellular
hpertrophy.  At higher dose levels: decrease in body weight and body
weight gain, necrosis of individual hepatocytes, pigmentation of Kupffer
cells, and lymphocytic infiltration of the liver in both sexes; slight
hematologic effects and decreased absolute and erlative kidney weights
in males; and ovarion atrophy, decreased ovary and spleen weights and
increased liver weights in females.

In a 90 day oral toxicity in dogs (OPPTS 870.3150), the NOAEL is 8.23
(males), 9.27 (females) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL is 32.0 (male), 33.9
(female) mg/kg/day based on slightly prolonged prothrombin times and
decreased plasma albumin and A/G ration (both sexes; decreased calcium
levels and ovary weights and delayed maturation in the ovaries (female);
decreased cholesterol and phospholipid levels, testis weights,
spermatogenesis, and spermatic giant cells in testes (male).

In a 28 day dermal study in rats (OPPTS 870.3200) the NOAEL was 250
(male), 60 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 1000 (male), 250 (female)
mg/kg/day based on increased plasma glucose, triglyceride levels, and
alkaline phosphatase activity and inflammatory cell infiltration in the
liver and necrosis if single hepatocyts in females and hhaline change in
renal tubules and a very slight reduction in body weight in males.  At
higher dose levels in females, chronic tubular lesions in the kidneys
and inflammatory cell infiltration in the adrenal cortex were observed.

In a subchronic neurotoxicity screening study in rats  (OPPTS 870.6200b)
the NOAEL was 95.4 (male), 216.4 (female) mg/kg/day, both at the highest
dose tested.  The LOAEL was not determined.  No treatment related
observations at any dose level.  LOAEL was not achieved.  May not have
been tested at sufficient high dose levels; however, a new study is not
required because the weight of evidence from other toxicity studies
indicates no evidence of concern.>

<	5. Chronic toxicity.  In a chronic toxicity study in dogs (OPPTS
870.4100) the NOAEL was 4.05 (male), 4.49 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL
was 21.0 (male), 24.6 (female) mg/kg/day based on increase in creatinine
in both sexes, transient decease in food consumption in females, and
occasional increase in urea levels, decrease in ALT, and atrophy of
seminiferous tubules in males.

In a mouse carcinogenicity study (OPPTS 870.4200) the NOAEL was 2.63
(male), 3.68 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 63.8 (male), 87.6
(female) mg/kg/day based on hepatocyte hypertrophy, single cell
necrosis, inflammatory cell infiltration, pigment deposition, foci of
cellular alteration, hyperplasia of Kupffer cells and increased mitotic
activity, also an increase in the incidence of hepatocellular adenoma
(both sexes).  At higher doses, there was an increase in the incidence
of hepatocellular adenocarcinoma (both sexes) and the number of animals
with multiple tumors, evidence of carcinogenicity.

In a combined carcinogenicity study in rats (OPPTS 870.4300) the NOAEL
was 21.0 (male), 50.3 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 63.0 (male),
255 (female) mg/kg/day based on the increased incidence of lymphocytic
infiltration of the renal pelvis and chronic nephropathy in males and
decreased body weight gain, slight increase in the severity of
hemosiderosis of the spleen, foci of cellular alteration in liver and
chronic tubular lesions in kidney in females.  No evidence of
carcinogenicity.

In a hepatic cell proliferation study in mice, the NOAEL was 16 (male),
20 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 72 (male), 87 (female) mg/kg/day
based on proliferative activity of hepatocytes.  At higher dose levels,
increases in absolute and relative liver weights, speckled liver,
haptocellular glycogenisis/fatty change, heptocellular necrosis,
apoptosis and pigmentation were observed.

In a  28 day feeding study to assess replicative DNA synthesis in the
amle rat, the NOAEL was 711 mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was not established.
Immunohistochemical staining of the liver sections from control and high
dose animals for proliferating cell nuclear antigen gave no indication
for a treatment related increase in the fraction of DNA synthesizing
hepatocytes in S-phase.  CGA-293343 did not stimulate hepatocyte cell
proliferation in male rats.

-oxidation.>

<	6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of thiamethoxam in rats and
livestock animals is adequately understood.  The residues of concern
have been determined to be parent thiamethoxam and its metabolite
[N-(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-N’-methyl-N’-nitro-guanidine]
expressed as thiamethoxam.>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. For most risk assessment purposes, residues
of the metabolite corrected for molecular weight are considered to be
toxicologically equivalent to parent thiamethoxam.  However, EPA has
determined that the metabolite should not be included in the cancer risk
assessment.>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. There are no specific studies requested by
the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) at this time because
endocrine effects have been well characterized in an acceptable
2-generation reproduction study with a clear NOAEL and LOAEL, and the
chronic reference dose (cRfD) selected for thiamethoxam risk assessments
is considered protective of the observed endocrine effects.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Tier I acute, and Tier III chronic aggregate risk
assessments were performed for thiamethoxam using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCIDTM, version 2.16) from Exponent.  All
consumption data for these assessments was taken from the USDA’s
Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-96
consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII children’s survey
(1998) consumption database.  In the Tier I acute assessment, in
addition to established tolerances (40 CFR 180.565) for the combined
residues of thiamethoxam (CGA293343) and its metabolite (CGA322704) in
or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities including meat and milk.
 These exposure assessments also included the proposed crop tolerance
for seed treatment use on onions (0.03 ppm).  Percent of crop treated
values were conservatively estimated to be 100% for all registered and
proposed uses.  Field trials residue values were used in the Tier III
chronic assessments where thiamethoxam was applied at the maximum
intended use rate and samples were harvested at the minimum pre-harvest
interval (PHI) to obtain the maximum expected residues.  Calculated
percent crop treated (%CT) values were incorporated in these chronic
Tier III assessments.  Drinking water estimates were incorporated
directly into the dietary exposure assessments using the highest
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground
water.  >

<	i. Food. Acute Exposure: The thiamethoxam acute dietary (food only)
risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups using an
acute reference dose of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day based upon a developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats with a no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) of 34.5 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X
safety factor includes intra- and inter-species variations.  No
additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate
risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin
of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the
exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was
expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  At the 95th
percentile, acute (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted
in a MOE of 2,573 (3.83% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most
exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 1,349
(7.30% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for
this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for
exposures below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food only)
exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses of
thiamethoxam.

Chronic Exposure.  The thiamethoxam chronic dietary (food only) risk
assessment was performed for all population subgroups using a chronic
reference dose of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day based upon a two generation
reproduction study in rats with a no observable adverse effect level
(NOAEL) of 1.2 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X
safety factor includes intra- and inter-species variations.  No
additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate
risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin
of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the
exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was
expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (%RfD).  Chronic
(food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 15,879
(0.6% of the RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed
sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 4,756 (2.1% of
the RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this
assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for
exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food only)
exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses of
thiamethoxam.

Cancer.  A quantitative risk assessment using a cancer endpoint was not
performed.>

<	ii. Drinking water. EPA uses the Tier 2 model PRZM/EXAMS to estimate
potential surface water concentrations and the screening model SCI-GROW
to estimate potential ground water concentrations.  None of these models
includes consideration of the impact that processing (mixing, dilution,
or treatment) would have on the removal of pesticides from the water
source prior to distribution as drinking water.  The primary use of
these models is to provide a conservative approximation of the Estimated
Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of specific pesticides in drinking
water.  These models were used by Syngenta to provide EDWCs of
thiamethoxam for the registered uses and the proposed use on onions as a
seed treatment.  Based on these assumptions, the highest acute surface
water EDWC (generated using the standard PRZM crop scenario for Florida
peppers) is 12.15 parts per billion (ppb) based on the existing pepper
use.  The highest chronic surface water EDWC, generated using the PRZM
crop scenario for California lettuce, is 0.764 ppb based on the existing
lettuce use.  The highest acute and chronic EDWC for ground water (based
on an application rate of 1 x 0.266 lb./acre) is 4.12 ppb.  The highest
of these values was used for the acute and chronic aggregate assessments
and will be considered to be protective for all drinking water concerns.

 was input directly into the DEEM-FCID™ software as “water, direct
and indirect, all sources”.  Acute exposure (water only) to the U.S.
population resulted in a MOE of 132,184 (0.07% of the aRfD of 0.35
mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years
old) with a MOE of 42,435 (0.23% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day).
Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA
generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta
believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from acute dietary (food and drinking water) exposure to residues
arising from all current and proposed uses of thiamethoxam.

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water:  The chronic EDWC of 4.12 ppb
(ground water) was used to calculate the chronic drinking water exposure
values for the U.S. Population and population subgroups.  Chronic
drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the
DEEM-FCID™ software as “water, direct and indirect, all sources”.
Chronic exposure (water only) to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE
of 13,953 (0.72% of the chronic RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most
exposed sub-population was infants (<1 year old) with a MOE of 4,211
(2.38% of the chronic RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark
MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no
concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic
drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current and
proposed uses of thiamethoxam.>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. A residential exposure and risk assessment
was performed for thiamethoxam using the recently revised endpoints and
uncertainty factors established by the EPA.  The residential exposure
and risk assessment was performed for thiamethoxam uses on turf and
ornamentals using the Meridian 0.33G and 25WG labels.  Based on these
Meridian labels, there is a potential for residential handler exposure
from consumers making applications to home lawns and ornamentals.  There
is also a potential for post-application residential exposure to adults
and children re-entering treated lawns and to adults playing golf on
treated turf.  The following endpoints were used for these residential
risk assessments:  NOAEL = 1.2 mg/kg/day (for adults, from a two
generation oral reproduction study in rats) and NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day
(for children 1-6, from a short-term dermal from a 28-day dermal study
in rats).  The post-application residential MOE for children (1-6 years)
from turfgrass use of Meridian 25 WG is 1,347, which exceeds the
residential risk arising from the turfgrass use Meridian 0.33G (MOE =
1,650).  The resultant combined short-term MOEs were1,347 (total
post-application risk) and 2,111 (combined post-application and handler
risk) for children (1-6 years) and adults (20-49 years), respectively.
Both children (1-6 years) and adults (20-49 years) MOEs are above the
Benchmark MOE of 100 and thus do not exceed the EPA’s level of
concern.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.
 Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity”.  Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to
thiamethoxam and any other substances and thiamethoxam does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  For the
purposes of this tolerance action, the EPA has not assumed that
thiamethoxam has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus
water) showed that exposure from all established and proposed
thiamethoxam tolerances would result in a MOE of 2,523 (3.91% of the
aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day) for the general U.S. population, which
exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  The chronic dietary exposure analysis
(food plus water) showed that exposure from all registered and proposed
thiamethoxam tolerances resulted in a MOE of 7,389 (1.4% of the chronic
RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day) for the general U.S. population, which also
exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  For the short-term aggregate exposure
analysis the corresponding food, water and residential MOEs were
aggregated using the inverse MOE approach.  The short-term aggregate
(food, drinking water, and residential) MOE was 2,040 for adults (20-49
years old), which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  Based on the
completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these
petitions, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all
current and proposed thiamethoxam uses, including anticipated dietary
exposure from food, water, and all other types of non-occupational
exposures.>

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

.

/

8

9

K

L

R

q

¤

¦

h

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

' h

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

摧‒ÇЀ=摧癠¶㰒ഀᣆ

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

 which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  Based on the completeness and
reliability of the toxicity data supporting these petitions, Syngenta
believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues arising from
all current and proposed thiamethoxam tolerances, including anticipated
dietary exposure from food, water, and all other types of
non-occupational exposures.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	There are currently no Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) set for
thiamethoxam for crops by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
International MRLs for the insecticide thiamethoxam have been
established for various agricultural commodities in a number of
countries including Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Great Britain (UK),
Greece, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Korea (South), Latvia, Moldova,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine,
and United States.>

 PAGE

 PAGE   9


[Federal Register: October 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 62362-62364]
[DOCID:fr31oc05-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52658; File No. SR-NASD-2005-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.: Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos.
1 and 2 Thereto Amending the Arbitration Fees Applicable to Certain
Statutory Employment Discrimination Claims

October 24, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On April 8, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change relating to
arbitration fees applicable to certain statutory employment
discrimination claims. On April 25, 2005, NASD filed Amendment No. 1
(``Amendment No. 1'') to the proposed rule change.\1\ On June 23, 2005,
NASD filed Amendment No. 2 (``Amendment No. 2'') to the proposed rule
change.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 30, 2005.\3\ The Commission received three
comments on the proposal, as amended.\4\ For the reasons discussed
below, the

Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Amendment No. 1 replaces the original rule filing in its
entirety.
    \2\ See Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 2 clarified certain
aspects of the rule text.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51921 (June 24, 2005),
70 FR 37887 (June 30, 2005) (The ``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter to Jonathan Katz, dated July 21, 2005, by Richard
P. Ryder, President, Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc.
(``Ryder Letter''); letter to Jonathan Katz, dated July 21, 2005, by
Steven B. Caruso, P.C., Maddox Hargett & Caruso (``Caruso Letter'');
letter to Jonathan Katz, dated July 26, 2005, by Rosemary J.
Shockman, President Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association
(``Shockman Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Description of the Proposal

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to limit the arbitration
filing fees applicable to certain statutory employment discrimination
claims. The Rule 10210 Series contains special rules applicable to the
arbitration of employment discrimination claims. The rules, which set
forth the procedures that relate specifically to statutory employment
discrimination claims, supplement and, in some instances, supersede the
provisions of the Code of Arbitration Procedure (Code) that apply to
the arbitration of other employment disputes. The Rule 10210 Series,
however, does not provide a separate fee schedule for statutory
employment discrimination claims. Instead, associated persons who bring
statutory employment discrimination claims pay according to the
schedule of fees (which are based on the dollar value of the claim) set
forth in Rule 10332.
    During the 1990s, Federal appeals courts were split on whether
employers could require mandatory arbitration of statutory employment
discrimination claims and then require the employee to pay all or part
of the arbitrators' fees.\5\ The United States Supreme Court considered
the issue of fees in connection with the arbitration of Federal
statutory claims in 2000.\6\ The Supreme Court found that the existence
of large arbitration costs could preclude a person from effectively
vindicating his or her Federal statutory rights in arbitration.
Therefore, the Supreme Court established a case-by-case approach
whereby a person can invalidate an arbitration agreement by showing
that the arbitration would be prohibitively expensive. Since the
respondent never presented any evidence regarding her likely
arbitration costs, the Supreme Court did not specify how ``detailed the
showing of prohibitive expense must be before the party seeking
arbitration must come forward with contrary evidence.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Previously, the United States Supreme Court had determined
that mandatory arbitration of employment discrimination claims was
permissible so long as the prospective litigant could effectively
vindicate his or her statutory cause of action in the arbitral
forum, thereby allowing the statute to continue to serve both its
remedial and deterrent function, Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane
Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 28, (1991) (citing Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v.
Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637 (1995)).
Specifically, the courts disagreed as to whether requiring claimants
in statutory employment discrimination claims to pay arbitral forum
fees and expenses would prevent them from effectively vindicating
their claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, found that an employee could not be required to
agree to arbitrate statutory claims if the agreement required the
employee to pay all or even part of the arbitrator's fees and
expenses. Cole v. Burns International Security Services, et al., 105
F.3d 1465 (D.C. Cir 1997) (``Cole v. Burns''). The court noted that
``it would undermine Congress's intent to prevent employees who are
seeking to vindicate statutory rights from gaining access to a
judicial forum and then require them to pay for the services of an
arbitrator when they would never be required to pay for a judge in
court.'' Id. at 1484. On the other hand, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that although the allocation of
arbitration costs may not be used to prevent effective vindication
of Federal statutory claims, this does not mean that the assessment
of any arbitral forum fees against an employee bringing such claims
is prohibited. William v. Cigna Financial Advisory Inc., 197 F.3d
752, 763-64 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson
Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991)).
    \6\ Green Tree Finance Corp. of Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79
(2000) (``Green Tree'').
    \7\ Id. at 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the case law, and in order to ensure that associated
persons who have statutory employment discrimination claims are able to
effectively vindicate such claims, the proposed rule change revised the
arbitration fees applicable to certain statutory employment
discrimination claims.\8\ Specifically, the proposed rule change
provided that a current or former associated person who brings a
statutory employment discrimination claim that is subject to a
predispute arbitration agreement will pay no more than a $200 filing
fee (which is non-refundable) at the time that the associated person
asserts such a claim.\9\ The member that is a party to a statutory
employment discrimination arbitration proceeding will pay the remainder
of the filing fee, if any, as well as all forum fees. While the filing
and forum fees will not be subject to allocation by the arbitrator(s),
the panel will have the ability, as it does currently under the Code,
to allocate various costs associated with arbitration, including the
adjournment of hearings (Rule 10319); the production of documents
(Rules 10321 and 10322); the appearance of witnesses (Rule 10322); and
the recording of proceedings (Rule 10326). In addition, arbitrators
will still have the ability to allocate attorneys' fees, in accordance
with applicable law, as currently provided for in Rule 10215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The new rule will apply only to disputes that are subject to
a predispute arbitration agreement. The regular fee schedule set
forth in Rule 10332 will apply to claims that are not subject to
such an agreement. Thus, if a member does not require its employees
to arbitrate employment disputes, but the employee chooses to file a
statutory employment discrimination claim in arbitration, the
employee will be subject to the regular fee schedule. See Rule
10201(b) (statutory employment discrimination claims that are not
subject to a predispute arbitration agreement may be arbitrated only
if all parties agree to do so).
    \9\ As previously mentioned, associated persons who have
statutory employment discrimination claims currently pay the filing
fees and hearing session deposits provided in Rule 10332 at the time
that they file a claim. These charges, which are based on the amount
of the claim, range from $25 to $600 for filing fees and from $25 to
$1,200 for hearing sessions deposits. Under the proposed rule, the
filing fee will continue to be based on the amount of the claim as
set forth in Rule 10332, but will be capped at $200. Thus, an
associated person who files a claim requesting damages of $4,000
would pay a $50 filing fee, while the filing fee for a $4 million
claim would be $200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD believes that the proposed rule will allow those associated
persons who agree to arbitrate statutory employment discrimination
claims as a condition of employment to pursue their rights in
arbitration, because their filing fee will be limited to a maximum of
$200 which is comparable to the cost of filing a civil claim in State
or Federal court.\10\ At the same time, the proposed rule will not
result in any additional delays or uncertainty in the arbitral process
as it provides for a straightforward sliding-scale fee with a cap
rather than a case-by-case analysis of such things as the claimant's
ability to pay for arbitration and the cost differential between
arbitration fees and court filing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In October 2004, NASD surveyed the State and Federal court
filing fees for civil cases in the five states where it believes the
largest number of NASD arbitrations are filed (California, Florida,
Illinois, New York, and Texas). NASD found that, in these
jurisdictions, the State court filing fees ranged from $160 to $305
and the Federal court filing fee was $150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comment Summary

    The proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on
June 30, 2005.\11\ We received three comments on the proposal.\12\ Two
commenters believed that the treatment accorded to employees with
statutory discrimination claims should be extended to customer
claims.\13\ One of these commenters stated that as there are
significantly more customers than there are associated persons, the
NASD should expand the fee relief to customer claims, and stated that
the NASD had not justified its determination to treat associated
persons more favorably than customers.\14\ One commenter expressed
concern that arbitration fees are higher than fees in court
proceedings, discouraging arbitration claims, and stated that
arbitration should be equally accessible to customers as to
employees.\15\ This commenter did not believe that the NASD had
sufficiently justified its decision to provide fee relief for statutory
employment

discrimination claims but not customer claims, and believed that fee
relief for customer claims was necessary for vindication of customers'
rights. The commenter cited the fee-relief rules of other arbitration
associations in support of the argument that such fee relief was
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Note 3, supra.
    \12\ See Note 4, supra.
    \13\ See Caruso Letter, Shockman Letter.
    \14\ See Caruso Letter.
    \15\ See Shockman Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter was concerned that charging the broker-dealer
``virtually all'' the fees for a statutory discrimination claim would
create distortions in the process, lengthening and encouraging
dissatisfaction with the process and providing incentives to bring a
weak discrimination claim.\16\ This commenter believed that assessing
attorneys' fees for frivolous claims would not have any deterrent
effect, and also believed that weak discrimination claims would be
dismissed and the dismissal would be inappropriately blamed on
arbitrator bias. Citing LaPrade v. Kidder Peabody (``LaPrade''),\17\
the commenter expressed disagreement with the NASD's decision to shift
the greater part of the forum fees to the employer, and criticized the
NASD's reliance on and interpretation of Cole v. Burns and Green Tree.
The commenter stated that the rationale for fee-shifting in these court
cases could not be limited to fee-shifting in statutory employment
discrimination claims, and expressed concern that the proposed rule
change would accelerate demand for fee-shifting across all
arbitrations. The commenter believed that an occasional waiver rather
than a blanket exemption would be preferable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Ryder Letter.
    \17\ 246 F.3d 702 (DC Cir., 2001) (holding that Cole v. Burns
does not preclude an arbitrator from assessing certain fees against
a claimant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD responded to the commenters by observing that the proposed
rule change was intended to be very limited in scope, only addressing
situations in which an employee must enter into a predispute
arbitration agreement for statutory employment discrimination claims,
specifically the issue addressed in Cole v. Burns. NASD stated that
such claims form a very small percentage of the total number of claims
filed with NASD. NASD also stated that it neither intended nor believes
that there is a compelling reason for the proposed fee changes to be
applied to all statutory securities claims brought by customers.
Furthermore, NASD stated that it does not believe that the arbitration
process will be impaired by the change because arbitrators will be able
to identify and dispose of frivolous or marginal claims, as well as
allocate costs and attorneys' fees. Lastly, NASD stated that it
believes that waivers, rather than uniform fee-shifting, will introduce
significant delays and uncertainty to the arbitration process.
    In connection with one commenter's \18\ objection to the fee-
shifts, NASD noted that NASD is the only forum for statutory employment
discrimination claims based on presdispute arbitration agreements. In
this context, NASD stated that it believes that it is ``fair and
reasonable for members, who require their employees to enter into
predispute arbitration agreements, to pay additional filing and forum
fees for this service.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Ryder Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Findings

    The Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act, and in particular with Sections 15A(b)(5) \19\ of the Act,
which requires that the NASD's rules provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members
and issuers and other persons using any facility or system that the
NASD operates or controls. The Commission believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the provisions of the Act noted above
because it will permit employees subject to predispute arbitration
agreements to vindicate statutory employment discrimination claims
without significant financial barriers to adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe that NASD is required, in connection with this
proposal, which addresses a limited number of statutory employment
discrimination claims, to expand the fee relief in the proposal to fees
for statutory securities claims brought by customers. The NASD's
proposal deals with an extremely limited set of claims brought in its
arbitration forums. The NASD states that in each of the last five
years, statutory employment discrimination claims accounted for less
than one percent of all claims filed with NASD. In connection with
providing a forum for arbitration of such claims, the NASD has
determined to provide fee relief consistent with Cole v. Burns, which
was concerned with the accessibility of the adjudicatory system to a
claimant subject to a predispute arbitration agreement in a statutory
employment discrimination claim. We note that Cole v. Burns provides
justification for the fee relief, and would not require expansion of
fee relief into other statutory securities claims. In this context, we
agree with NASD's rationale for limiting the proposed fee reduction to
statutory employment discrimination claims based on predispute
agreements.
    With regard to the proposed rule change's determination to shift
certain fees to employers, we note particularly that NASD provides the
only forum for employers in which such claims can be adjudicated, and
that very few of the claims adjudicated by NASD's arbitration system
involve statutory employment discrimination claims. LaPrade, the case
cited by the commenter for the proposition that Cole v. Burns does not
bar the assessment of all forum fees against the claimant, does not
preclude NASD from determining that it will assess certain fees against
an employer in this extremely limited number of cases. Further, given
the extremely limited number of these cases adjudicated by the NASD,
automatic fee-shifting for employment discrimination claims based on
predispute agreements should not pose a significant hardship to
employers. We agree with the NASD's position that requiring a waiver
analysis of every case involving statutory employment discrimination
claims would most likely introduce significant delays, complexity and
uncertainty to the arbitration process.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2005-046) be, and hereby
is, approved.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \21\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5991 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 53556]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment To Swap 1.12 Acres of
Airport Land and Receive 14.55 Acres of Land From CTDOT for Airport Use
at Bradley International Airport, Windsor Lock, CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request
from the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA) to swap 1.12 acres of
airport land, which is part of the entrance road to the airport, and
receive 14.55 acres of land from CTDOT. This project will realign the
entrance roadway to allow CAA to move forward with the planned Ground
Transportation Center. The entrance roadway will be owned and operated
by the CTDOT.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on providing comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W 12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents
by contacting the FAA at the address listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and
Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region
Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on September 27, 2019.
Gail B. Lattrell,
Director, ANE-600.
[FR Doc. 2019-21856 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 33265]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14654-000]

Twain Resources, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On December 12, 2014, Twain Resources, LLC, filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Tungstar Redux
Water Power Project (Tungstar Redux Project or project) to be located
at Pine Creek Mine and along Morgan and Pine Creek, near the City of
Bishop in Inyo County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An intake
of an unspecified design collecting Pine Creek Mine discharge water
from its discharge point on Morgan Creek; (2) an 18-inch-diameter steel
penstock of unspecified length with a 450-foot vertical drop: (3) A
powerhouse: (4) a 600-kW impulse turbine connected to a 625-kVA
generator; (5) a transmission line; (6) a substation connecting to an
existing 56-kV main transmission line, and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The estimated annual generation of the Tungstar Redux Project would be
3,600 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Doug Hicks, Twain Resources, LLC, 280
Florenca Way, Reno, Nevada 89511; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Joseph Hassell; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>: email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications 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-14654-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14654) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 5, 2015.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14275 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P