CITIZEN PETITION TO CEASE UNLAWFUL SALE OF MISBRANDED & ADULTERATED
COSMETICS (2004)

To secure the safety of the millions of consumers who use personal care
products in their daily lives, Environmental Working Group (EWG)
petitions the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take immediate
action to cease the unlawful distribution of misbranded, adulterated and
unlabeled cosmetics. American consumers rely upon the Food and Drug
Administration for protection from exposure to unsafe food, drug and
cosmetic products. Armed with the authority of the Food Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FD&CA), the FDA is charged with the duty of ensuring the
safety of cosmetic products available to consumers. Based on an in-depth
investigation of over 10,000 personal care product ingredients,
Environmental Working Group has identified serious probable safety
violations of the FD&CA by cosmetics manufacturers and retailers, and
submits this petition seeking the following enforcement actions by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs:

Institute a voluntary recall or court-ordered injunction or seizure for
cosmetics containing ingredients that have not been proven safe through
scientific testing that do not bear appropriate warnings, pursuant to 21
U.S.C.A. § 362, 21 U.S.C.A. § 332, 21 U.S.C.A. § 334, 21 C.F.R. §
7.40, and 21 C.F.R. § 7.45 ;

Clarify the requirements for adequate substantiation of safety, pursuant
to 21 U.S.C.A. § 371(a), 21 C.F.R. § 740.10(a);

Establish a requirement that manufacturers remove from cosmetic products
any ingredient that contains any toxic impurity or that may combine with
other ingredients to form harmful impurities, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A. §
371(a);

Initiate a voluntary recall or court-ordered injunction or seizure for
cosmetics containing ingredients that may cause injury through ordinary
use, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A. § 361, 21 U.S.C.A. § 332, 21 U.S.C.A. §
334, 21 C.F.R. § 7.40, and 21 C.F.R. § 7.45;

Publicly command all Internet vendors to display a conspicuous list of
ingredients of cosmetic products sold on their websites, subject to
injunction or seizure, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 701.3, 21 C.F.R. §
701.2, 21 U.S.C.A. § 362, 21 U.S.C.A. § 375, and 21 U.S.C.A. § 336;
and

Conduct an investigation of products containing chemical ingredients
prioritized according to prevalence and toxicity, pursuant to 21
U.S.C.A. § 372, and 21 U.S.C.A. § 374.

COSMETICS SAFETY CONCERNS CONFRONT MILLIONS ON A DAILY BASIS

Americans are exposed to 126 different cosmetic chemicals daily.
Cosmetics use, which supports this $35 billion industry, poses serious
safety concerns for a broad cross-section of the population. A cosmetic
is defined in the FD&CA as an article, or component thereof, which is
"intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced
into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for
cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the
appearance." See 21 U.S.C.A. 321 (I). EWG conducted a survey of 2,300
people, which shows that the average adult uses 9 cosmetic products each
day, with 126 unique chemical ingredients. See Environmental Working
Group, Skin Deep (June 7, 2004), http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep
(hereinafter "Skin Deep")(attached as Exhibit E). More than a quarter of
all women and one of every 100 men use at least 15 cosmetic products
daily. See id. Despite this population-wide exposure to cosmetic
chemicals, the existing law governing cosmetics has cast a disturbingly
narrow safety net.

89% of the 10,500 personal care product ingredients remain untested. Of
the 7,500 products that EWG analyzed, just 28 have been fully assessed
for safety by the cosmetic industry's review panel. All other products -
99.6 percent of those examined - contain one or more ingredients that
have never undergone a public safety review. See Skin Deep. According to
FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, "a cosmetic manufacturer may use
almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product
without an approval from FDA." FDA Diethalonomine and Cosmetic Products.
Office of Cosmetics and Colors Fact Sheet, 1999,
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-dea.html (visited May 6, 2004).

A self-regulating industry panel is the only existing safety screen for
cosmetics. Because the FDA lacks authority to require pre-market safety
assessments of cosmetics, the responsibility for ingredients safety
review rests largely in the hands of the cosmetic industry's
self-regulating panel, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR). No other
independent authority exists that is charged with the review of cosmetic
safety. Manufacturers may conduct their own testing, but this testing is
not required to be made public or to be reported to the FDA.

The CIR was established in 1976 as a joint effort between the Cosmetic,
Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), the FDA and the Consumer
Federation of America (CFA). FDA sits on the panel as a non-voting
member along with the other two founding organizations. See CIR website,
http://www.cir-safety.org (visited May 18, 2004). Voting members are
nominated by the three non-voting founding organizations, and are
selected from the medical and scientific community. See id. In analyzing
a particular ingredient, CIR will conduct a review of scientific
literature, provide for public comment, conduct public discussions of
the panel's findings, and issue a final report in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. See id. The panel may direct industry to conduct
studies or release unpublished data if existing scientific literature on
the safety of ingredients is insufficient. See id. While CIR findings
are not binding on FDA, FDA has historically relied upon CIR's
conclusions in making cosmetic safety rulings. See, e.g. Alpha Hydroxy
Acid Guidance, 67 FR 71577.

In light of these safety considerations, it is of the utmost importance
that FDA exercise its authority to the fullest extent possible to
preserve the safety of American consumers.

EWG INVESTIGATION REVEALS ACTIONABLE VIOLATIONS OF FDA SAFETY LAWS

EWG has conducted an investigation of more than 10,000 personal care
product ingredients, which has revealed serious violations of FDA's
consumer safety standards. EWG's analysis compares ingredients in 7,500
personal care products against lists of known and suspected chemical
health hazards produced by government agencies such as the FDA, EPA and
CDC, industry organizations such as the Cosmetics Industry Review Panel
(CIR), and academics published in peer-reviewed journals. Through this
process, serious violations of the FD&CA have been brought to our
attention:

EWG has identified 356 cosmetic products containing ingredients that may
not have been proven safe, and fail to bear the required warning. See
HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitA.php"
Exhibit A . These products may be misbranded and subject to voluntary
recall, injunction or seizure. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 362, 21 U.S.C.A. §
332, 21 U.S.C.A. § 334, 21 C.F.R. § 7.40, and 21 C.F.R. § 7.45.

EWG has discovered 20 cosmetic products containing ingredients that may
cause harm when used according to package directions. See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitB.php"
Exhibit B . These products may be adulterated and subject to voluntary
recall, injunction or seizure. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 361, 21 U.S.C.A. §
375, 21 U.S.C.A. § 336, and 21 C.F.R. § 701.3(b).

EWG has visited 41 websites offering cosmetic products for sale without
conspicuously listing the ingredients. See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitC.php"
Exhibit C . These websites may be selling misbranded products in
violation of labeling requirements, and should be publicly notified of
the violation and warned of potential injunction or seizure in the event
of continued noncompliance. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 362, 21 U.S.C.A. § 375,
21 U.S.C.A. § 336, and 21 C.F.R. § 701.3, 21 C.F.R. § 701.2.

EWG has developed a list of 9 toxic cosmetic ingredients, which are
widely used and pose a serious threat of injury. See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitD.php"
Exhibit D . Products containing these ingredients may be misbranded or
adulterated, and are subject to FDA inspection, safety review, and
enforcement action where warranted. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 372, and 21
U.S.C.A. § 374, 21 U.S.C.A. § 361, and 21 U.S.C.A. § 362.

FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUPPORT FOR ACTION REQUESTED

1. EWG Calls Upon the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to Institute
Recall, Injunction or Seizure Proceedings for Cosmetics That Have Not
Been Proven Safe.

EWG has identified 356 cosmetic products which may not have not been
adequately substantiated for safety and do not bear the required
warning. For all of the products listed in   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitA.php"
Exhibit A , the CIR has formally concluded that at least one component
ingredient has insufficient testing data to support the ingredients'
safe use in cosmetics. See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitA.php"
Exhibit A . According to the FD&CA, a product is misbranded if its
labeling is false or misleading or if:

any word, statement, or other information required by or under authority
of this Act to appear on the label or labeling is not prominently placed
thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words,
statements, designs, or devices, in the labeling) and in such terms as
to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual
under customary conditions of purchase and use.

21 U.S.C.A. § 362(a), (c). The implementing regulations require the
placement of a warning label on cosmetic products for which adequate
substantiation of safety has not been obtained. See 21 C.F.R. 740.10(a).
The regulation provides as follows:

Each ingredient used in a cosmetic product and each finished cosmetic
product shall be adequately substantiated for safety prior to marketing.
Any such ingredient or product whose safety is not adequately
substantiated prior to marketing is misbranded unless it contains the
following conspicuous statement on the principal display panel:

Warning -- The safety of this product has not been determined.

Id. None of the 356 cosmetic products that EWG identified bear the
warning required by the FDA regulations. As such, these products may be
misbranded, and should be removed from the marketplace until they are
either proven safe, repackaged according to FD&CA standards or
reformulated.

The Commissioner of Food and Drugs has the authority to institute
recall, injunction or seizure proceedings to prosecute violations of the
prohibition against misbranding. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 332, 21 U.S.C.A. §
334, 21 C.F.R. § 7.40, 21 C.F.R. § 7.45. In the case of a recall, the
Commissioner may request a cosmetic firm to initiate a recall if a
product presents a risk of illness, injury or gross consumer deception,
and a recall is necessary to protect the public health and welfare. See
21 C.F.R. § 7.45. Cosmetics with ingredients that are inadequately
substantiated for safety clearly meet this standard. As to risk of
illness or injury, the fact that the CIR found that there is not
sufficient data to show that the chemicals are safe for cosmetic use
shows that there is potential for illness or injury to the consumer. In
terms of consumer deception, FDA's labeling requirement creates a
reasonable basis for a consumer to believe that the absence of a label
indicates that no ingredients with unproven safety are present in a
given cosmetic product. Thus, where the industry's own review panel has
determined that the cosmetics are not sufficiently tested to meet this
standard, the consumer has been misled by the absence of the label. An
injunction may be sought to restrain any violation of the Act. See 21
U.S.C.A. § 332. An injunction is appropriate because the 356 products
that EWG has identified fail to include the required warning. A seizure
may be sought when a misbranded cosmetic has entered into interstate
commerce. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 334. Seizure would be proper because all of
the products identified by EWG are available for sale either on the
Internet or in stores throughout the United States.

The only way to prevent the risk of injury, illness or consumer
deception is to prohibit the continued distribution of misbranded
products until the cosmetic firms either prove the safety of the
ingredients, include the required warning label, or reformulate the
product to remove all ingredients which have not been proven safe for
use in cosmetics. EWG therefore requests that the Commissioner institute
recall, injunction or seizure proceedings for the cosmetics detailed in
 HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitA.php"
Exhibit A .

2. EWG Calls Upon the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to Clarify the
Requirements for Adequate Substantiation of Safety for the Purposes of
the Labeling Provision in 21 C.F.R. § 740.10(a).

FDA's current regulations do not sufficiently explain requirements for
substantiating the safety of cosmetics. See 21 C.F.R. § 740.10(a). The
FDA has "broad statutory authority to protect the public health by
'making such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of the (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) of 1938, 21
U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. (1976)).'" See Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association v. Food and Drug Administration, 634 F.2d 106, 108 (D. Del.
1980) quoting Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U.S.
356, 369 (1973), see also 21 U.S.C.A. § 371(a). While the FDA
regulations require that each ingredient used in a cosmetic product and
each finished cosmetic product shall be adequately substantiated for
safety prior to marketing, no specific details are included to explain
the meaning of the phrase "adequately substantiated for safety." The Act
and its implementing regulations are completely silent on the definition
of the phrase as well as the terms "substantiated" and "safety," as they
apply to cosmetics.

The safety net cast by the government's oversight of cosmetics is
disturbingly narrow. FDA's want of authority to require pre-market
safety review makes cosmetics the least regulated industry under the
agency's protection. For instance, in regulating pesticides in food, the
FDA defines "safety" as "reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate
exposures ... including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information," and calls for an
assessment of safety for vulnerable populations such as infants and
children. 21 U.S.C.A. § 346 (b)(2)(A)(ii) & (b)(2)(C). In the cosmetics
regulations, FDA has provided no guidance on the meaning of the term
"safety." From a health perspective, there is no logical reason why
cosmetics shouldn't meet the same standard as food.

The average adult uses nine cosmetic products each day, and many of
these products are formulated with penetration enhancers that increase
the delivery of component chemicals to the bloodstream. Furthermore, the
industry safety review panel has identified potential hazardous
impurities for about one of every ten ingredients assessed. See
Cosmetics Ingredient Review, 2003 (hereinafter "CIR 2003"). Of the four
product concerns for which FDA explicitly requests direct contact from
imported cosmetic inspectors, three are related to harmful impurities in
the products. See Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Cosmetics
Compliance Program-Imported Cosmetics Program, December 8, 2000, at
Chapter 29-Cosmetics and Color Technology,   HYPERLINK
"http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/cp29002.html" \t "_blank"
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/

~comm/cp29002.html  (visited May 12, 2004) (hereinafter "CFSAN 2000").

While the cosmetics industry has created a self-regulating ingredient
review panel, the marketplace still includes thousands of cosmetic
ingredients that have never undergone a public safety review. How can a
regulatory agency continue to allow such a serious breach of safety to
persist?

FDA must clarify the meaning of its requirement that ingredients and
finished products be "adequately substantiated for safety" to ensure the
safety of cosmetics and the consumers who use them. EWG has investigated
7,500 products, not one of which bears a warning stating: "the safety of
this product has not been determined." Only 28 of these 7,500 products
have been fully reviewed for safety by CIR or FDA; all other products
contain at least one ingredient not assessed for safety. The CIR did
conduct a review of the ingredients in the 356 likely misbranded
products identified by EWG, but none of these products bore the
appropriate label either. These incongruities are cause for concern.

The efficacy of FDA's regulatory scheme must be revisited. Without a
clear standard, FDA's enforcement and cosmetic industry's compliance
efforts are undermined. Most significantly, the lack of a definitive
safety standard leaves consumers without a basis for confidence in the
safety of the overwhelming majority of cosmetic products. Under the
current standard, a cosmetic firm could conduct unreliable tests, or
even no tests at all, and still place an unsafe product on drugstore
shelves without having to include a warning label or face FDA
enforcement. The effect of this safety gap is that consumers will be
exposed to untested chemicals that can cause serious harm, such as
reproductive abnormalities or cancer. Consumers should not have to bear
the burden of the government's poorly defined safety scheme.

It is imperative that FDA exercise its authority to ensure that such an
unjust burden is not placed on consumers, and clarify its cosmetic
safety standard to offer the greatest possible consumer protection. EWG
proposes that FDA define "adequately substantiated for safety" as
follows:

Substantiation, through peer-reviewed scientific publications or
publicly available industry studies, of a reasonable certainty of no
harm from aggregate exposures to the product and its component
ingredients including impurities, taking into account chemicals that may
increase penetration of the product or its component chemicals through
the skin, and including all anticipated cosmetic exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information, taking into
consideration vulnerable populations such as infants and pregnant women.

Any finding of safety for a cosmetic product must explicitly account for
risks posed by impurities until such time as impurities are removed from
the component ingredients or the product is reformulated in such a way
as to preclude the formation of impurities by the component ingredients
in the product.

Anything less will be a disservice to the millions of Americans who rely
upon the FDA to ensure the safety of cosmetic products available on the
marketplace.

3. EWG Calls Upon the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to Establish a
Requirement that Manufacturers Remove from Cosmetic Products any
Ingredient that Contains any Toxic Impurity or that May Combine with
Other Ingredients to Form Harmful Impurities.

At least 146 cosmetic ingredients have potentially hazardous impurities
linked to cancer and other serious health impacts, but the FDA has not
articulated any firm safety standards limiting such impurities in
cosmetic products. See CIR 2003, CFSAN 2000, see also Office of
Cosmetics and Colors, Prohibited Ingredients and Related Safety Issues,
March 30 2000,   HYPERLINK "http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-210.html"
\t "_blank"  http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-210.html  (visited May
12, 2004) (hereinafter "CFSAN 2000a"), see also Faust and Casserly,
Petrolatum and Regulatory Requirements, NPRA International Lubricants &
Waxes Meeting, November 13-14, 2003, Houston, TX,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.penreco.com/newsevents/tradearticles/%20NPRA2003_Pet_Regulat
ions.pdf" \t "_blank"  www.penreco.com/newsevents/tradearticles/
NPRA2003_Pet_Regulations.pdf  (visited May 17, 2004) (hereinafter "Faust
and Casserly"), and see The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic and
Non-Food-Products, Opinion concerning a clarification on the
formaldehyde and para-formaldehyde entry in Directive 76/768/EEC on
cosmetic products, SCCNFP/587/02 (December 17, 2002) (hereinafter
"SCCNFP"), and see EU directive on classification and labeling of
dangerous substances, Directive 67/548/EEC, Annex 1, Chemical compendium
at   HYPERLINK
"http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/markrestr/cm
rlist.pdf" \t "_blank"  http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/chemicals

/legislation/markrestr/cmrlist.pdf  (hereinafter "EU 2002"). The
Commissioner has the authority to issue safety standards under the
FD&CA. See Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association v. Food and Drug
Administration, 634 F.2d 106, 108 (D. Del. 1980) quoting Mourning v.
Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 369 (1973), see also 21
U.S.C.A. � 371(a). Government and industry sources reveal 24
industrial chemicals or groups of chemicals identified as potential
impurities in a wide range of products, with health concerns spanning
cancer, neurotoxicity, and reproductive problems. See CIR 2003, CFSAN
2000 & 2000a, Faust and Casserly, SCCNFP, and EU 2002. The FDA issued a
recommendation to manufacturers to voluntarily remove a carcinogenic
impurity, nitrosamines, from products in 1996. See Food and Drug
Administration, Are nitrosamines in cosmetics a health hazard?, Office
of Cosmetics and Colors, November 1996,   HYPERLINK
"http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-cos25.html" \t "_blank"
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-cos25.html  (visited May 6, 2004). EWG
proposes that FDA adopt a similar standard for all hazardous impurities:

Remove from cosmetic products any ingredient that contains any toxic
impurity or that may combine with other ingredients to form harmful
impurities.

FDA's regulation of these hazardous impurities will limit consumers'
risk of cancer and other avoidable harm from cosmetic products.

4. EWG Calls Upon the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to Initiate Recall,
Injunction or Seizure Proceedings for Cosmetics Containing Ingredients
that May Cause Injury During Ordinary Use.

EWG has discovered 20 cosmetic products containing ingredients that may
cause harm when used according to package directions. See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitB.php"
Exhibit B . The FD&CA prohibits the distribution of cosmetics that
"contain[] any ... deleterious substance which may render it injurious
to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof,
or under conditions of use that are customary or usual[.]" 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 361(a). For every product listed in   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitB.php"
Exhibit B , the CIR found that a component ingredient is not safe for
the specific use indicated on the product's package directions. Four of
these products are baby products containing ingredients that the CIR
determined should not be used on infant skin. These products, mostly
baby skin creams and diaper rash ointments, contain directions such as
"apply ointment liberally ... with each diaper change" and claims such
as "especially effective as a ... barrier for Baby's diapered area." See
  HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitB.php"
Exhibit B . Thirteen of these products are acne or rash treatments,
which include chemicals that the CIR has found should not be used on
damaged or injured skin. See id. Two are face creams that include
chemicals that CIR found should not be used in leave-on cosmetic
products. See id. One is an "overnight blemish reducer" containing a
chemical that the CIR determined should not contact the skin. Id. The
instructions on this product say "cover blemishes ... once daily" and
"[l]eave on overnight[.]" Id. All of these products appear to be in
violation of the FD&CA, and are adulterated according to Section 361 of
the Act. See 21 U.S.C.A. 361(a).

The Commissioner of Food and Drugs has the authority to institute
recall, injunction or seizure proceedings to prosecute violations of the
prohibition against adulterated cosmetics. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 332, 21
U.S.C.A. § 334, 21 C.F.R. § 7.40, 21 C.F.R. § 7.45. Cosmetics with
ingredients that are unsafe for the uses indicated in the package
direction meet the prerequisites for a recall as well. See 21 C.F.R. §
7.40, 21 C.F.R. § 7.45. As to risk of illness or injury, the fact that
the CIR found that the chemicals are not safe for the marketed use
proves that there is potential for illness or injury to the consumer. In
terms of consumer deception, the package directions make it reasonable
for a consumer to believe that the product is safe to use as directed.
Thus, where the industry's own review panel has determined that a
component ingredient is not safe to use in that application, the
consumer has been misled into the unsafe use of a cosmetic product. In
this instance, an injunction is appropriate because the 20 products that
EWG has identified include ingredients that may be harmful when used
according to the package directions. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 332. Seizure
would also be proper because all of the products identified by EWG are
available for sale either on the Internet or in stores throughout the
United States. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 334.

The only way to prevent the risk of injury, illness or consumer
deception is to prohibit the continued distribution of these adulterated
products until the cosmetic firms either prove the safety of their
products or reformulate the products to remove all unsafe ingredients.
EWG therefore requests that the Commissioner institute injunction,
seizure or recall proceedings for the cosmetics detailed in   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitB.php"
Exhibit B .

5. EWG Calls Upon the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to Command Internet
Vendors to Display a Conspicuous List of Ingredients for Cosmetic
Products Sold on Their Websites.

EWG has identified 41 websites currently selling cosmetics without
displaying the ingredients, in violation of FDA ingredient listing
requirements. See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitC.php"
Exhibit C . Cosmetics produced or distributed for retail sale to
consumers for their personal care must include an ingredient
declaration. See 21 CFR § 701.3. The ingredient declaration must be
conspicuous so that it is likely to be read at the time of purchase. See
21 C.F.R. § 701.2. All label statements required by regulation must be
placed on the label or labeling with such prominence and conspicuousness
that they are readily noticed and understood by consumers under
customary conditions of purchase. See 21 C.F.R. § 701.2. For all of the
websites listed in   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitC.php"
Exhibit C , cosmetics are offered for sale, but a listing of ingredients
is not available on the website. Thus, these websites are selling
cosmetics without providing a declaration of ingredients conspicuously
displayed as required by FDA regulations. Under normal conditions of
Internet purchase, without an on-screen display of ingredients, a
consumer would have to purchase the product without having seen the
required list of ingredients. This violates FDA labeling regulations,
and constitutes misbranding. A product is misbranded if it fails to
include required information in such a way that is likely to be
understood under customary conditions of purchase. See 21 U.S.C.A. §
362. Thus, these websites are violating FDA regulations and appear to be
selling misbranded cosmetics.

EWG requests that the Commissioner publicly instruct all cosmetic
websites to display the required declaration of ingredients, subject to
injunction or seizure. The FDA has the power to seek injunction or
seizure, as well as the power to issue a public notice or warning to
address matters that involve gross consumer deception or FD&CA
violations. See 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 336, 362, and 375, 21 C.F.R. §§
701.2-701.3. The failure to provide a list of ingredients denies
consumers the right to know what is in the products they are purchasing.
This constitutes a violation of FDA standards as well as consumer
deception. The FDA should exercise its authority to ensure that
consumers have equal access to cosmetic labels both in stores and on the
Internet. The regulations apply equally to all products, and Internet
cosmetic vendors should be required to comply accordingly. EWG requests
that FDA publicly command Internet vendors to display the required
ingredient declaration on all cosmetic products, subject to further
prosecution by the Commissioner in the case of continued noncompliance.

6. EWG Calls Upon the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to Conduct an
Investigation of Products Containing Toxic Chemical Ingredients,
Prioritized According to Prevalence and Toxicity.

EWG has identified 9 common cosmetic ingredients, which are known to
pose health hazards [See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitD.php"
Exhibit D ]. Seven of these ingredients have not been studied by FDA or
CIR. FDA has the authority to conduct investigations of cosmetic
chemicals, and has done so in the past for prevalent ingredients, such
as Alpha Hydroxy Acids. See 21 U.S.C. § 372, see also Alpha Hydroxy
Acid Guidance, 67 FR 71577. EWG has identified ingredients which pose
serious health risks, including cancer, reproductive toxicity, skin
toxicity, and endocrine disruption. These toxic ingredients can be found
in at least 1,950 cosmetic products. See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/petition/exhibitD.php"
Exhibit D . These products may be misbranded or adulterated according to
FDA regulations. See 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 361-362.

In order to determine whether or not to take further action to remove
these products from the market, EWG requests that FDA utilize its
authority and investigate these 9 priority chemicals to determine their
safety for use in cosmetics.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

No environmental impact statement is included because none is required
for request.

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that, to the best knowledge and belief of the
undersigned, this petition includes all information and views on which
the petition relies, and that it includes representative data and
information known to the petitioner, which are unfavorable to the
petition.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jane Houlihan

Vice President for Research

Environmental Working Group

Voice<PHONE_NUMBER>

Arianne Callender

General Counsel

Environmental Working Group

Voice<PHONE_NUMBER>

Olivia James

Cosmetics Consumer and Advocate

P-5 Quincy Circle Dayton, NJ 08810

Voice<PHONE_NUMBER>

HEADQUARTERS 1436 U St. N.W., Suite 100 | Washington, DC 20009 | (202)
667-6982 |

CALIFORNIA OFFICE 1904 Franklin St. Suite 703 | Oakland, CA 94612 |
(510) 444-0973 |


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11548-11550]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-1039]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chevron Oil Company Canal,
Fourchon, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adding a special operating regulation
governing the State Route 3090 (SR 3090) swing span bridge across the
Chevron Oil Company Canal, mile 0.05, at Fourchon, Louisiana. Since
construction of the bridge in 1972, the bridge has operated on a
customary schedule requiring a one-hour advance notice without having a
special operating regulation in place. This rule codifies the current
custom and operating schedule of the bridge as a special operating
regulation.

DATES: This rule is effective March 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG 2014-1039]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated
with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Donna Gagliano, Bridge Specialist, Coast Guard; telephone
504-671-2128, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. This bridge has operated under one-hour
notice for openings since put in place in 1972 without concern. Local
community and waterway users are aware and accustomed to the operating
schedule. In over 40 years of operation of this bridge, no complaints
have been received by the Coast Guard. Waterway users understand how
the bridge operates and this Final Rule simply codifies its operation.
Completing the process of an NPRM is unnecessary because this operating
practice is in use and accepted by the waterway users.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (FR). The bridge
has been operating under the one-hour advance notification schedule for
over 40 years. This final rule codifies the existing schedule in 33 CFR
part 117. Therefore, providing a 30-day notice before making this rule
effective is unnecessary.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The SR 3090 swing span bridge, locally known as the Fourchon
Bridge, across the Chevron Oil Company Canal, mile 0.05, at Fourchon,
LA has a vertical clearance of 12.0 feet above Mean High Water
elevation, 3.0 feet at Mean Sea Level in the closed-to-navigation
position, unlimited in the open position. Presently, this bridge opens
on signal if at least one-hour advanced notification is given to the
Greater Lafourche Port Commission 24-hour dispatcher. This operating
schedule has been in place since the bridge was constructed in 1972;
however, this custom and operating schedule was never codified in
subpart B, Specific Requirements, under 33 CFR part 117. This final
rule codifies the existing operating schedule for the bridge. Since
construction of the bridge, no complaints have been received by the
Coast Guard from waterway users concerning the operation of the bridge.
    Navigation on the waterway consists of oilfield related equipment,
houseboats, shrimp boats, and other recreational craft. The bridge has
opened on average one time per month for the passage of oil field
equipment, houseboats, shrimp boats, and other recreational crafts.
During the shrimp season, the bridge may open 8-10 times per month.

C. Discussion of Final Rule

    Under 33 CFR 117.5, bridges are required to open on signal for the
passage of vessels except as otherwise authorized or required. The SR
3090 bridge is currently untended and maintained in the closed-to-
navigation position. The bridge opens for the passage of vessels if a
one-hour advance notice to the Greater Lafourche Port Commission 24-
hour dispatcher. Title 33 CFR 117.40 requires that, if approved, a
description of the full operation of the advance one-hour notice on the
drawbridge will be added to subpart B of this part.
    This present operating schedule is known and understood by the
local waterway users, but this operating schedule is not reflected in
the CFR. This rule codifies this schedule as a Special Operating
Requirement under 33 CFR part 117, subpart B.
    The operation of the draw of the SR 3090 swing span bridge across
the Chevron Oil Company Canal, mile 0.05, at Fourchon, LA is as
follows: The draw of the SR 3090 bridge at Fourchon shall open on
signal if at least one-hour notice is given.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this Final Rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ``significant''
under that Order because the rule only codifies the current operating
schedule for the SR 3090 bridge which is already understood, known, and
accepted by the local bridge and waterway users.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels who wish to transit
the bridge. However, the affect would be negligible as this rule
codifies the current custom and operating schedule of the bridge that
mariners are accustomed to and the bridge would still be able to open
with advance notice.
    This Final Rule formalizes the drawbridge operation custom that has
been in place since 1972. Therefore, mariners would not be affected
given that they would not experience any alteration of current
expectations with regard to current drawbridge operation.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This rule does not use a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the promulgation of special operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  117.437 through 117.439 as Sec. Sec.  117.438
through 117.440, respectively, and add new Sec.  117.437 to read as
follows:

Sec.  117.437  Chevron Oil Company Canal.

    The draw of the SR 3090, mile 0.05, at Fourchon, shall open on
signal if at least one-hour notice is given.

    Dated: February 11, 2015.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-04483 Filed 3-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1654-1656]
[DOCID:fr09ja08-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57093; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Eliminate Certain Regulatory Fees

January 3, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 31, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
NYSE. The NYSE has designated the proposed rule change as one concerned
solely with the administration of the Exchange pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE proposes to eliminate, effective January 1, 2008, certain
regulatory fees that NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation'')
currently remits to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') and which FINRA has determined should be eliminated
effective January 1, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on NYSE's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at NYSE's

principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate, effective January 1, 2008,
certain regulatory fees that are charged to member organizations,
including registered persons fees, branch office registration fees,
credit extension fees, and certain other regulatory and testing fees.
    On July 30, 2007, NYSE Regulation and the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') consolidated their member
regulation operations into a combined organization, FINRA. In
connection with that transaction, NYSE Regulation agreed to remit to
FINRA certain registration and regulatory fees that NYSE charges its
member organizations. Because the regulatory activities associated with
those fees are now performed by FINRA, those fees compensate FINRA for
the regulatory services it assumed as a result of the regulatory
consolidation.
    The NYSE registration and regulatory fees currently remitted to
FINRA include:
     Branch Office Fees, which are charged, per branch, $350.00
for the first 1,000 branches, $150.00 for the next 2,000 branches, and
$125.00 for over 3,000 branches; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Rule 342.11; see also FINRA By-Laws, Section 4(a)
of Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Registered Persons Fees, which are $65.00 for a new
applicant, $43 for a transfer applicant, and $52.00 for annual
maintenance, per person; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Rule 345.14; see also FINRA By-Laws, Section 4(b)
of Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Regulation T Credit Extensions, which are $4.00 per
extension; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE Rule 434; see also FINRA By-Laws, Section 8 of
Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Statutory Disqualification Filing Fee, which is $1,500;
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Rule 346(f); see also FINRA By-Laws, Section 12 of
Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Statutory Disqualification Review Fee, which is $1,000;
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Rule 346(f); see also FINRA By-Laws, Section 12 of
Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FOCUS Feedback, which is $250.00 each or $900 for four
quarters; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NYSE Rule 416.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Regulatory Element Fee, which is $75.00; \11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NYSE Rule 345A; see also FINRA By-Laws, Section 4(f) of
Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Series 7 Qualification Exam, which is $100.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Rule 345; see also FINRA By-Laws, Section 4(c) of
Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The foregoing fees are charged under the authority of NYSE rules
that have been designated as ``Common Rules'' under the 17d-2
Allocation Plan that NYSE entered into with FINRA.\13\ FINRA has
informed NYSE Regulation that it has reviewed the above-listed
registration and regulatory fees and has determined to cease charging
those fees effective January 1, 2008. FINRA will make a parallel filing
with the Commission to reflect this determination. Accordingly, as
contemplated by the 17d-2 Agreement, the NYSE is filing to amend its
Price List to eliminate the above-listed fees, effective January 1,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under Act, NYSE, NYSE Regulation,
Inc., and NASD entered into an agreement to reduce regulatory
duplication for firms that are members of FINRA and also members of
NYSE on or after July 30, 2007, by allocating to FINRA certain
regulatory responsibilities for selected NYSE rules (the ``17d-2
Agreement''). The Agreement includes a list of those rules (``Common
Rules'') for which FINRA has assumed regulatory responsibilities.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR
42146 (August 1, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Order Approving and
Declaring Effective a Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory
Responsibilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this
proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(5) \14\ that
an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is concerned solely with the
administration of the Exchange and has, therefore, become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) thereunder.\16\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of
such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-127 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-127. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

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

communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2007-127 and should be submitted on or before
January 30, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-156 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34396-34397]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14745]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No., CD15-25-000]

City of Adak, Alaska; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a
Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On May 26, 2015, and supplemented on May 26, 2015, the City of
Adak, Alaska, filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying
conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory
Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Adak Water System Project
would have an installed capacity of 1.7 kilowatts (kW), and would be
located along the existing 8-inch-diameter pipeline between the city's
water treatment plant and the treated water storage tanks. The project
would be located in the City of Adak, Alaska.
    Applicant Contact: City of Adak, c/o Layton Lockett, City Manager,
100 Mechanics Way, Adak, AK 99546, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) The existing approximately 100-square-
foot PRV2 building; (2) a short 4-inch-diameter intake pipe receiving
water from the existing approximately 4,535-foot-long, 8-inch-diameter
pipeline from the city's water treatment plant; (3) one turbine/
generator unit with an installed capacity of 1.7 kW; (4) a short 4-
inch-diameter discharge pipe returning water to a short existing 8-
inch-diameter pipeline that provides water to the existing treated
water storage tanks; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
    The proposed project would have a total installed capacity of 1.7
kW.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Statutory provision              Description       Satisfies (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by   The conduit the                      Y
 HREA.                            facility uses is a
                                  tunnel, canal,
                                  pipeline, aqueduct,
                                  flume, ditch, or
                                  similar manmade water
                                  conveyance that is
                                  operated for the
                                  distribution of water
                                  for agricultural,
                                  municipal, or
                                  industrial
                                  consumption and not
                                  primarily for the
                                  generation of
                                  electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended   The facility is                      Y
 by HREA.                         constructed,
                                  operated, or
                                  maintained for the
                                  generation of
                                  electric power and
                                  uses for such
                                  generation only the
                                  hydroelectric
                                  potential of a non-
                                  federally owned
                                  conduit.

FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended  The facility has an                  Y
 by HREA.                         installed capacity
                                  that does not exceed
                                  5 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as         On or before August 9,               Y
 amended by HREA.                 2013, the facility is
                                  not licensed, or
                                  exempted from the
                                  licensing
                                  requirements of Part
                                  I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is
not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and 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. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15-25) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14745 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11308]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Noise Impacts Roadmap Annual Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting participation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises interested persons that the First Annual
Meeting of the Aviation Noise Impacts Roadmap will be held on April 19-
20, 2011, in Washington, DC, to coordinate and communicate research
activities and findings among stakeholders and other parties with an
interest in aviation noise impacts. The purpose of the meeting is to
update and advance our collective scientific knowledge of the impact of
aircraft noise on society in order to improve our ability to address
various aspects of noise impacts and develop optimal mitigation
solutions.

DATES: The First Annual Meeting of the Aviation Noise Impacts Roadmap
will be held on April 19-20, 2011, in Washington, DC. The meeting will
begin each day at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at 5:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Headquarters building, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20410, Conference Room C. Attendance is open to all
interested parties; however, for building security requirements, please
register by March 29 (see below for information on registration).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Friesenhahn, Office of
Environment and Energy (AEE-100), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (202)
267-5594. Meeting registration is required by March 29; there is no
registration fee. To register, please provide your name, business
affiliation, a contact email and phone number.
    Background: Following the recommendation from the FAA's aircraft
noise impacts research workshops, federal agencies are initiating
annual meetings on aviation noise impacts research. The first annual
meeting will focus on the following topics: noise effects on health and
welfare; noise in national parks and wilderness; aircraft noise
modeling; and costs of aircraft noise on society. The Department of
Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Defense
(DOD), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), National Park
Service (NPS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and
other federal agencies, international organizations, industry,
academia, and the public will meet to discuss ongoing and future noise
impacts research activities in the above areas. A product of the
meeting will be an Aviation Noise Impacts Roadmap document. The
document will outline key research elements, summarize current programs
and projects, and identify current knowledge gaps and future research
activities. The intent of the Roadmap is to define systematic, focused,
and complementary research programs, so that limited resources can be
more effectively pooled to advance the knowledge on how best to address
the impacts of aviation noise on society.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 23, 2011.
Carl E. Burleson,
Director of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011-4589 Filed 2-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29738]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0617]

Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays Within the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce five safety zones for annual
firework displays in the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Zone during
the dates and times noted under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. This action
is necessary to prevent injury and to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the firework displays.
During the enforcement periods, entry into, transit through, mooring,
or anchoring within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or their Designated
Representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 will be enforced for the five
safety zones listed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION from 5 p.m. on July
4, 2017, through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2017 during the dates and times
specified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence,
Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 206-
217-6051<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce regulations for
the following five safety zones established for Annual Fireworks
Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of
Responsibility in 33 CFR 165.1332 during the dates and times noted in
the table below.
    The following safety zones will be enforced from 5 p.m. on July 4,
2017, through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2017:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Event name                   Location                 Latitude                    Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacoma Freedom Fair..............  Commencement Bay...  47[deg]17.103' N.            122[deg]28.410' W.
Friday Harbor Independence.......  Friday Harbor......  48[deg]32.255' N.            123[deg]0.654.033' W.
Three Tree Point Community         Three Tree Point...  47[deg]27.033' N.            122[deg]23.15' W.
 Fireworks.
Everett 4th of July..............  Port Gardner.......  48[deg]0.672' N.             122[deg]13.391' W.
Seattle Seafair..................  Lake Washington....  47[deg] 34.333' N.           122[deg] 16.017' W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332(b) apply to the
activation and enforcement of these safety zones. All vessel operators
who desire to enter the safety zone must obtain permission from the
Captain of the Port or their Designated Representative by contacting
the Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center
(JHOC) on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.1332 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to the publication of this
document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with extensive advanced notification of enforcement
of these safety zones via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts on the day of the events.

    Dated: June 26, 2017.
L.A. Sturgis,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2017-13682 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3294-3295]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1408]

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

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, January
26, 2012 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 his designee, has
certified that, in his 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), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
January 26, 2012 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and
settlement of administrative proceedings; Other matters relating to
enforcement proceedings; and An adjudicatory matter.

    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:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 19, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1408 Filed 1-19-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF 									AIR AND RADIATION 6/13/16

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Allison meeting on GEM related issues

FROM: Houshun Zhang

TO:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memo documents a conference call meeting at EPA on June 13, 2016 with Allison Transmission, Inc.  Many people from Allison attended this meeting, including Debbie Gordon, Scott Mundy, Jed Mott, Bob Meyers, and Jeff Shultz. On EPA side, Houshun Zhang, James Sanchez, Paul Dekraker, and Kevin Newman attended meeting.

During the meeting, Allison presented their findings on GEM with many constructive comments.  EPA staff will investigate their comments, and take necessary actions accordingly if needed.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18542-18544]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC11-55-000
    Applicants: DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Gateway Energy Services
Corporation, Direct Energy (GW), Inc.
    Description: Gateway Energy Services Corporation, et al. Joint
Application For Authorization of Transaction Under section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, and Request for Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5156
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG11-71-000
    Applicants: Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of Summit Texas Clean
Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011
    Accession Number: 20110324-5027
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011

    Docket Numbers: EG11-72-000
    Applicants: White Stallion Energy Center, LLC
    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of White Stallion
Energy Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5109
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

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

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1195-001
    Applicants: Mittal Steel USA, Inc.
    Description: Amendment to Notice of Non-Material Changes in Status,
ArcelorMittal USA Inc.

    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5092
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1195-001
    Applicants: Mittal Steel USA, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to Motion for Determination of Category 1
Seller Status of ArcelorMittal USA Inc.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5093
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2517-002
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
    Description: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company submits tariff
filing per 35: Attachment C Refile--Compliance filing to be effective
3/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5118
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2688-001
    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC
    Description: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.17(b): Additional Information in Response to February 22,
2011 Letter Order to be effective 3/11/2011
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5049
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2997-001
    Applicants: Vectren Retail, LLC
    Description: Vectren Retail, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Vectren Retail d/b/a Vectren Source, Supplement to Initial MBR
Application to be effective 4/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5085
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3149-001
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): 2011-03-25 CAISO Errata to March
18, 2011 Tariff Amendment to be effective 3/22/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5128
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 04, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3185-000
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Huron Solar Station WDT)SGIA to be effective 3/
24/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011
    Accession Number: 20110324-5003
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3186-000
    Applicants: Southern California Telephone Company
    Description: Southern California Telephone Company submits tariff
filing per 35.12: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be
effective 5/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011
    Accession Number: 20110324-5036
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3187-000
    Applicants: SBR Energy, LLC
    Description: SBR Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Baseline New Tariff Filing to be effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011
    Accession Number: 20110324-5046
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3188-000
    Applicants: Stream Energy Maryland, LLC
    Description: Stream Energy Maryland, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Market-Based Rate Application for Stream Energy Maryland, LLC to
be effective 3/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011
    Accession Number: 20110324-5050
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3189-000
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Midwest ISO-SPP JOA to be
effective 3/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011
    Accession Number: 20110324-5061
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3190-000
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.1: Filing of Tariff Record and Certificate of Concurrence for
Midwest ISO-SPP JOA to be effective 3/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011
    Accession Number: 20110324-5079
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3191-000
    Applicants: SJH Energy, LLC
    Description: SJH Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1: SJH
Energy FERC Electric Tariff to be effective 3/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011
    Accession Number: 20110324-5127
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011
    Docket Numbers: ER11-3192-000
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company
    Description: The Dayton Power and Light Company submits tariff
filing per 35.37: FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 10 to be effective
3/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5027
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3193-000
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company
    Description: The Dayton Power and Light Company submits tariff
filing per 35.37: FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 6 to be effective 3/
26/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5046
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3194-000
    Applicants: DPL Energy, LLC.
    Description: DPL Energy, LLC. submits tariff filing per 35.37: FERC
Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 3/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5058
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3195-000
    Applicants: New Hampshire Industries, Inc.
    Description: New Hampshire Industries, Inc. submits tariff filing
per 35.1: New Hampshire Industries FERC Electric Tariff to be effective
3/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5059
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3196-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original Service Agreement Nos. 2795 and 2796 to be
effective 2/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5061
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3197-000
    Applicants: Luminescent Systems, Inc.
    Description: Luminescent Systems, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.1: Luminescent Systems FERC Electric Tariff to be effective 3/25/
2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5099
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3198-000

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Addition of 4 transmission projects to
CWIP Rate Making Mechanism to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5129
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3199-000
    Applicants: PalletOne Energy, LLC
    Description: PalletOne Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
PalletOne Energy FERC Electric Tariff to be effective 3/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5146
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC11-5-000
    Applicants: Ghost Pine Windfarm, LP
    Description: Ghost Pine Windfarm, LP Notification of Self-
Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/25/2011
    Accession Number: 20110325-5091
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 15, 2011

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 29, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7852 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


October, 2004 Clean Air Interstate Rule Compliance Costs Minnesota Economic Impact Concerns Contact Mike Cashin, Minnesota Power, 218 722 5642 ext. 3339 MP Pollution Control Technology Installation Costs: Approximately $ 400 Million If Minnesota Power were to install pollution control technology to achieve CAIR compliance, Minnesota Power's customers would experience a large rate shock in order to recover an estimated $ 400 million in capital costs. This translates to over a $ 10 per megawatt hour premium, or about a 20% average electric customer rate increase. Minnesota Power has significantly reduced the SO2 and NOx emissions from its generating units over the last two decades by burning low sulfur, low mercury content western subbituminous coal, by operating over 70% of its unit capacity with scrubbers, and by using low NOx burner equivalent technology. The cost for Minnesota Power to retrofit controls on its Minnesota units to achieve another 70% in reduced SO2 and NOx emissions as required under the CAIR is estimated at over $ 400 million ( equipment only, not including overheads). Annual control equipment operating and maintenance costs would add another $ 26 million. Adding in overhead costs we estimate nearly a half billion dollar customer impact.

MP Pollution Control Credit Costs: Approximately $ 33 million annually If Minnesota Power were to purchase credits to achieve CAIR compliance, applying USEPA's estimated cost of emission credits, the economic impact on customers would be about $ 33 million annually. This translates to a significant rate increase of approximately $ 3.50 per megawatt hour or about a 7% average electric customer rate increase.

Additional Background Information Minnesota is in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS), including the more stringent fine particulate ( PM2.5) and eight hour average ozone standards. The focus in Minnesota is on preserving attainment with the NAAQS, as is indicated by the voluntary Clean Air Minnesota program and Xcel Energy's Metropolitan Emission Reduction Program ( MERP). The USEPA has done air quality monitoring using the CMAQ model that suggests Minnesota emissions of oxides of nitrogen ( NOx) may be impacting Chicago area air quality in excess of one percent of the 15 microgram per meter cubed annual average NAAQS standard ( e. g. 0.15 ug/ M3). Consequently, USEPA has included Minnesota in its proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule with 28 eastern states that must achieve a 70% reduction on average for both sulfur dioxide ( SO2) and nitrogen oxides ( NOx) phased in between 2010 and 2015.

  The cost for pollution control retrofits of Minnesota Power units to achieve CAIR targets is about triple that of the estimated cost to buy emission credits   but even credit purchases are not without risk. Most of the emission credits will be purchased from utilities in eastern states that delayed installing the type of pollution control equipment Minnesota Power installed long ago. This amounts to nothing more than a transfer of wealth. There is also a risk that market uncertainty could drive the cost of purchased credits higher over time. Page 2 of 2   USEPA modeling did not credit Clean Air Minnesota and MERP reductions. Emissions profiles used in EPA models appear to presume emissions allowed by permits rather than actual emissions, which overstates emissions. EPA did not initially include agreed to reductions approved by Minnesota regulators. With these reductions considered, Minnesota is " borderline" even using the overly strict USEPA proposed significance level of 1 percent impact.

  Air emissions from Minnesota show impacts well below the significance levels supported by the science. Fine particulate monitor's upon which air quality attainment is determined have greater variability than +/ 0.15 ug/ M3 ( actual is typically +/ 0.25 ug/ M3). Correlation of the CMAQ model predicted results with ground level monitors shows variability of +/ 0.75 to 1.5 ug/ M3 or more ( model variability plus monitor variability). Consequently, a more appropriate nonattainment contribution significance level for including a state in CAIR due to emissions transport concerns would be 5% to 10% ( the low end of what the models can predict) of the NAAQS standard, not 1% as USEPA proposes for CAIR.

  All Minnesota emission sources are modeled by USEPA, not just electric utility emissions ( e. g. includes mobile and other sources). Yet, the CAIR rule only focuses on utility emission reductions, presuming they are more cost effective.

  USEPA may be focusing on the wrong type of fine particulates to achieve desired health benefits. All species of fine particulates do not exhibit the same health impacts yet USEPA is proposing a standard as if all particles ( nitrates, sulfates, carbonaceous etc.) have equal health impacts. Ongoing studies ( e. g. ARIES) suggest that carbon monoxide and carbonaceous particulates exhibit statistically significant health impacts whereas utility sulfate and nitrate do not. USEPA is focusing only on sulfates and nitrates related to power plant emissions for controls under CAIR.

  Wealth Transfer: Minnesotan's will pay twice for good air quality. Minnesota's electric customers have already paid once to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. They will pay again to buy credits that help defray the cost for other regions to achieve air quality attainment. Minnesota air quality does not experience any benefits under CAIR unless the pollution control retrofit option ( which is triple the cost of buying pollution control credits) is selected. Even with the triple cost pollution control technology option Minnesota's air quality would experience only some small incremental improvement.

  Xcel Energy projects its costs for CAIR controls in Minnesota are about equivalent to Minnesota Power's, potentially resulting in about a billion dollar total impact on Minnesota's electric customers. This economic impact is in addition to the billion dollar expenditure Xcel Energy will incur for coal unit emission control retrofits and conversions from coal to natural gas under its recently approved Metropolitan Emission Reduction Program ( MERP).