[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41901-41903]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18711]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0068]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
and Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West) across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway mile 1088.6, Miami, FL and the operating schedule
that governs the Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) across Biscayne Bay,
Miami, FL. This action will extend the twice an hour opening schedule
of the Venetian Causeway Bridges (East and West) across Miami Beach
Channel and Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Miami, FL between 7 a.m.
and 7 p.m., to include weekends and Federal holidays. This action is
intended to reduce vehicular traffic caused by these bridges opening on
demand on weekends

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before: October 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0068 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Eddie Lawrence of the Coast Guard Bridge
Branch; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
AICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Venetian Causeway Bridges (East and West) currently open on
signal, except that between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday
except Federal holidays these bridges open twice an hour, pursuant to
33 CFR 117.269 and 33 CFR 117.261. Miami-Dade County, the bridge owner,
and the Cities of Miami and Miami Beach have requested a change to the
current operating schedule for both bridges to allow for scheduled
openings twice an hour to include weekends as there has been an
increase in both vehicle traffic and vessel traffic during these times.
Bridge logs indicate these bridges open up to four times an hour or
more during peak travel times, which results in frequent vehicular
traffic disruptions.
    The Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) across Miami Beach Channel,
Miami, FL has a vertical clearance of 5 feet at MHW in the closed to
navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 57 feet between
fenders.
    The Venetian Causeway Bridge (West) across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway mile 1088.6, Miami, FL has a vertical clearance
of 12 feet at MHW in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal
clearance of 90 feet between fenders.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.261. Under this
proposed regulation, the draw of the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West),
at Miami, Florida would open twice an hour, once on the hour and once
on the half-hour, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.269. Under this
proposed regulation, the draw of the Venetian Causeway Bridge (East)
would open twice an hour, once on the hour and once on the half-hour,
between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
    This change will still allow vessels to pass through the bridge
while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of
transportation. Emergency vessels and tugs with tows can still request
openings at any time.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the continued
ability for vessels to transit the bridge during the twice-an-hour
opening schedule. Vessels in distress, Public vessels of the United
States and tugs with tows must be passed at any time.

B. 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above, this proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    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 proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. 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 proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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
made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule simply promulgates
the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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. In Sec.  117.261, revise paragraph (nn) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.261  Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to
Key Largo.

* * * * *
    (nn) Venetian Causeway Bridge (West). The draw of the Venetian
Causeway Bridge (West) mile 1088.6, at Miami, Florida will open on
signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, including Federal
holidays, the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec.  117.269 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.269  Biscayne Bay.

    The draw of the Venetian Causeway bridge (East), at Miami, Florida
will open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, including
Federal holidays, the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.

    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Peter J. Brown,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2017-18711 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 35458-35459]
[DOCID:fr28jn07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12447-001]

Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Development Co; Notice of Availability
of Environmental Assessment

June 21, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for an original license for the Fort Dodge
Mill Dam Hydroelectric Project (project), to be located on the Des
Moines River in Webster County, Iowa, and has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyzed the potential
environmental effects of licensing the project and conclude that
issuing a license for the project, with appropriate environmental
measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the issuance date
of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``Fort Dodge Mill Dam Hydroelectric
Project No. 12447-001'' to all comments. Comments may be filed
electronically via Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``eFiling'' link.
For further

information, contact Patrick Murphy at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-12479 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES July 8, 2003 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Chlorpyrifos Methyl: Status of Toxicity Data Gaps, Impact of New Data on the Risk Assessment and Impact on Cumulative Risk Assessment. DP Barcode: D291405 PC Code: 059102 TO: Jackie Mosby/ Margaret Rice Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

FROM: Donna Davis, Chief Reregistration Branch 3/ HED ( 7509C)

THROUGH: Catherine Eiden, Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 3/ HED ( 7509C)

At the request of the Special Review and Reregistration Division ( SRRD), the Health Effects Division ( HED) has reconsidered the toxicity data gaps identified in the chlorpyrifos methyl ( CPM) Toxicology Chapter of the RED dated April 19, 2000 to support the continued use of chlorpyrifos methyl on stored grain. Additionally, SRRD has asked HED to comment on the impact of the chlorpyrifos DNT on endpoint selection and safety factors for chlorpyrifos methyl. Finally, HED has been requested to comment on the impact of retaining the use of chlorpyrifos methyl at 6 ppm in stored grain on the Organophosphate Cumulative Risk Assessment.

Data Gaps HED has addressed the issue of toxicity data gaps in detail in our memorandum entitled " Chlorpryrifos methyl: Current status of toxicity data gaps and bridging studies from chlorpyrifos." ( John Doherty, 7/ 08/ 03, TXR # 0051734). The findings in that memorandum are summarized briefly here. At the request of SRRD, HED considered if it were possible to use toxicity data generated on the closely related structural analog, chlorpyrifos ( CPY) to address data gaps for CPM. Based on a side by side comparison of critical endpoints and available data, the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee ( HIARC) Co Chairs concluded that CPM was likely to be less toxic than CPY based on comparison of cholinesterase inhibition, particularly in rats. Given the structural similarity between the two chemicals, toxicity data generated using CPY could be used 2 to address data gaps for CPM with the exception of the acute toxicity test requirements. Therefore, the only remaining data gaps for CPM are those that remain for CPY and the CPM specific acute toxicity testing data gaps. As CPY toxicity studies are submitted to address remaining CPY data gaps, they can be bridged to CPM. Additionally, the HIARC Co Chairs recommended that for risk assessment purposes CPM continue to be regulated using CPM specific endpoints and that the 10X database uncertainty factor for CPM continue to be retained.

CPY DNT Impacts on CPM Regulatory Endpoints and Uncertainty Factors Endpoint Impacts As a result of the HIARC's determination that toxicity data for CPY can be used to satisfy data gaps for CPM, SRRD has asked HED to comment on the impact that the CPY developmental neurotoxicity study would have on the risk assessment endpoints and safety factor for CPM.

Regulatory endpoints currently established for chlorpyrifos methyl are based on chemical specific toxicity studies. A summary of regulatory endpoints is contained in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Endpoint Selection Summary for CPM EXPOSURE SCENARIO DOSE ( mg/ kg/ day) ENDPOINT STUDY Acute Dietary General Population Including Infants and Children NOAEL= 1 mg/ kg/ day Inhibition of red blood cell cholinesterase. CPM Rat developmental toxicity ( MRID No.: 44680603)

UF = 100 Acute RfD = 0.01 mg/ kg/ day aPAD = Acute RfD/ 10X DB UF = 0.001 mg/ kg/ day Chronic Dietary NOAEL= 0.1 mg/ kg/ day Inhibition of plasma cholinesterase. CPM Chronic/ Carcinogenicity feeding study in rats ( MRID No.: 42269001)

UF = 100 Chronic RfD = 0.001 mg/ kg/ day cPAD = Chronic RfD/ 10X DB UF = 0.0001 mg/ kg/ day Dermal Absorption 3% based on comparison of the oral and dermal toxicity studies with chlorpyrifos using a common species and endpoint.

Short Term ( Dermal/ Inhalation) Oral NOAEL= 1 mg/ kg/ day Inhibition of red blood cell cholinesterase. See Acute Dietary Intermediate Term ( Dermal/ Inhalation) Oral NOAEL = 0.1 mg/ kg/ day Inhibition of plasma cholinesterase noted at the 90 day measurement. See Chronic Dietary Long Term ( Dermal/ Inhalation) Oral NOAEL = 0.1 mg/ kg/ day Inhibition of plasma cholinesterase. CPM Chronic/ Carcinogenicity feeding study in rats ( MRID No.: 42269001) EXPOSURE SCENARIO DOSE ( mg/ kg/ day) ENDPOINT STUDY 3 Carcinogenicity Classified as " not likely a human carcinogen." Carcinogenicity risk assessment is not appropriate.

HED has completed the review of the chlorpyrifos developmental neurotoxicity study in rats as well as supplemental data submitted ( Sue Makris, Barcodes: D254907, D247891 and D250250). The developmental neurotoxicity study ( DNT) in rats is currently classified as guideline unacceptable pending submission and review of additional morphometric data. In the DNT, a maternal NOAEL was not observed, the maternal LOAEL was < 0.3 mg/ kg/ day ( the lowest dose tested) based on plasma and RBC cholinesterase inhibition. Due to lack of morphometric data, an offspring NOAEL and LOAEL could not be determined.

Based on the available comparative toxicological data, the HIARC Co Chairs ( meeting dated ...) determined that CPY is likely a more potent cholinesterase ( ChE) inhibitor than CPM. Additionally, work done for the Revised ( 6/ 11/ 2002) Organophosphate Cumulative Risk Assessment ( OPCRA) supports these comparative findings. In the cumulative risk assessment CPY was assigned a relative potency factor of 0.06 relative to the index chemical methamidophos, where CPM was assigned a relative potency factor of 0.005 with respect to ChE inhibition. Based on the endpoint ( female brain ChE inhibition) used in the Revised OPCRA, CPY is ten times more potent than CPM. Since the regulatory endpoint of concern for CPM is ChE inhibition, based on both the side by side comparison of available CPM and CPY toxicity studies with respect to plasma and red blood cell ChE inhibition and on the work on brain cholinesterase inhibition in the OPCRA, it is clear that CPM is a less potent ChE inhibitor, therefore, it is more appropriate to select endpoints from the CPM toxicity studies where ChE inhibition was measured and clear NOAELs were established than to look to the ChE inhibition response in the chlorpyrifos DNT in which clear endpoints for ChE inhibition ( NOAELs/ LOAELs) were not established.

Therefore, HED concludes that the results of the chlorpyrifos DNT study does not impact the regulatory endpoints of concern for chlorpyrifos methyl.

Safety Factor Impacts For the purpose of the 2000 CPM RED risk assessment, in the absence of a complete toxicity database with respect to infants and children sensitivity issues, a 10X uncertainty factor was retained for CPM. SRRD has asked HED to revisit this uncertainty factor in light of findings in the CPY DNT and taking into consideration decisions made for CPY.

The HED Hazard Identification Review Committee ( HIARC ) considered the implications of the CPY DNT results with respect to children's sensitivity and susceptibility on March 28, 2000 ( Chlorpyrifos Children's Hazard: Sensitivity and Susceptibility, 3/ 28/ 2000, K. Baetcke, V. Dellarco, S. Makris and D. Smegal) for CPY. The HIARC determined that the 10X uncertainty factor ( UF) would be retained for CPY based on a complete weight of the evidence approach to sensitivity. Literature data as well as the DNT identified potential brain effects at high doses ( well above the doses where ChE inhibition was seen). The neurobehavioral ramifications of these brain effects were unclear, therefore, the 10X UF was retained based on residual concern. 4 HED has determined that it is appropriate to bridge the results of the CPY DNT to CPM. However, in the absence of a chemical specific CPM DNT study, it is not possible to either establish or to rule out the potential for susceptibility after exposure to CPM based on the weight of the evidence findings for CPY; therefore, HED will continue to apply a 10X database uncertainty factor to the risk assessment for CPM as a protective measure in the absence of chemical specific DNT data.

Cumulative Risk Assessment Impact HED has been asked to run a screening level assessment to determine if the inclusion of CPM on stored grain at 6.0 ppm and at 3.0 ppm will have an impact on the cumulative risk assessment. Attachment 1 contains the detailed results of the screening runs. A summary table comparing the findings are shown in Table 2, below.

The conditions of the runs performed by Bill Smith ( Chemistry and Exposure Branch, 6/ 10/ 03) are summarized as follows: ° FQPA factors for OPs were set as in the Revised OPCRA ( 6/ 11/ 02), i. e., methamidophos, dimethoate/ omethoate & CPY = 1; all other chemicals = 3. ° CPM was assigned a factor of 10 as a worst case assumption in this screening level assessment ° Residues of CPM were exclusively from the Pesticide Data Program ( PDP) monitoring data, primarily on wheat which reflects the current 6 ppm use. The PDP data included 1562 samples of wheat with 920 detects/ 642 non detects, 867 samples of rice with 4 detects/ 867 non detects, and 332 samples of oats with 1 detect/ 331 non detects. ° Two runs were conducted. The first run duplicated the conditions of the 6/ 11/ 02 CRA and did NOT include CPM. The second run reflects addition of CPM. at 6.0 ppm. ° The Point of Departure ( POD) for methamidaphos was used to calculate MOEs.

Table 2. Cumulative Run Summary Results ( per capita)

Subpopulations 95th Percentile 99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile Without CPM Exposure MOE With CPM Exposure MOE Without CPM Exposure MOE With CPM Exposure MOE Without CPM Exposure MOE With CPM Exposure MOE Children 1  2 years 0.000218 367 0.000221 361 0.000609 131 0.000613 130 0.001758 45 0.001762 45 Children 3  5 years 0.000174 459 0.000178 449 0.000492 162 0.000496 161 0.001520 52 0.001524 52 Children 6  12 years 0.000095 843 0.000098 817 0.000290 275 0.000293 272 0.000972 82 0.000975 82 Youth 13  19 years 0.000049 1618 0.000051 1559 0.000156 511 0.000158 505 0.000510 156 0.000510 156 Adults 20  49 years 0.000062 1296 0.000063 1267 0.000186 431 0.000187 427 0.000630 126 0.000631 126 5 Adults 50+ years 0.000070 1150 0.000071 1132 0.000201 398 0.000202 395 0.000670 119 0.000671 119 Results of the screening level runs are consistent with what would be predicted based on the CPM relative potency factor at 0.005 relative to the index chemical, methamidophos, and the low CPM residues which are confined to foods that are not among the most highly consumed on a mg/ kg/ body weight basis. Based on the results of the runs above using data reflecting the 6 ppm use rate, which showed no significant difference in the OPCRA with or without CPM, no additional runs were completed to reflect lowering on the use rate.

HED concludes that there is no significant impact on the OPCRA as a result of retaining the use of CPM on stored grain at 6.0 ppm. 6 Attachment 1. Cumulative Risk Assessment Runs DEEM FDIC Acute Analysis for Cumulative without CPM U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 1.33 DEEM FCID ACUTE Analysis for CUMULATIVE OP EXPOSURE ( 1994 98 data) Residue file: OPCRA R2. R98 Adjustment factor # 2 used. Analysis Date: 06 09 2003/ 10: 12: 57 Residue file dated: 12 17 2002/ 14: 11: 03/ 8 NOEL ( Acute) = 0.080000 mg/ kg body wt/ day Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used. MC iterations = 1000 MC list in residue file MC seed = 10 Run Comment: " OPCRA R2: Check sample using same FQPA factors as in OPCRA R1" ===============================================================================

Summary calculations ( per capita):

95th Percentile 99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile Exposure MOE Exposure MOE Exposure MOE       Children 1 2 yrs: 0.000218 367 0.000609 131 0.001758 45 Children 3 5 yrs: 0.000174 459 0.000492 162 0.001520 52 Children 6 12 yrs: 0.000095 843 0.000290 275 0.000972 82 Youth 13 19 yrs: 0.000049 1618 0.000156 511 0.000510 156 Adults 20 49 yrs: 0.000062 1296 0.000186 431 0.000630 126 Adults 50+ yrs: 0.000070 1150 0.000201 398 0.000670 119 DEEM FDIC Acute Analysis for Cumulative with CPM U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 1.33 DEEM FCID ACUTE Analysis for CUMULATIVE OP EXPOSURE ( 1994 98 data) Residue file: OPCRA R2. R98 Adjustment factor # 2 used. Analysis Date: 06 09 2003/ 11: 24: 49 Residue file dated: 06 04 2003/ 12: 57: 35/ 8 NOEL ( Acute) = 0.080000 mg/ kg body wt/ day Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used. MC iterations = 1000 MC list in residue file MC seed = 10 Run Comment: " OPCRA R2 Check sample using same FQPA factors as in OPCRA R1, but with chlorpyrifos methyl included [ RPF= 0.005; FQPA factor = 10X]" ===============================================================================

Summary calculations ( per capita):

95th Percentile 99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile Exposure MOE Exposure MOE Exposure MOE       Children 1 2 yrs: 0.000221 361 0.000613 130 0.001762 45 Children 3 5 yrs: 0.000178 449 0.000496 161 0.001524 52 Children 6 12 yrs: 0.000098 817 0.000293 272 0.000975 82 Youth 13 19 yrs: 0.000051 1559 0.000158 505 0.000510 156 Adults 20 49 yrs: 0.000063 1267 0.000187 427 0.000631 126 Adults 50+ yrs: 0.000071 1132 0.000202 395 0.000671 119 cc: Donna Davis, John Doherty, Catherine Eiden


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36973-36975]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13473]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77975; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending the Exchange's Price List To Eliminate Certain Services That
Are No Longer Utilized by Users and To Remove Obsolete Text

June 2, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on May 23, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Price List to
eliminate certain services that are no longer utilized by Users and to
remove obsolete text. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to change the Price List for the co-location
\4\ services offered by the Exchange to eliminate certain services that
are no longer utilized by Users \5\ and to remove obsolete text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-
NYSE-2010-56). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New
Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location
services to Users.
    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76008 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60190
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-40). As specified in the Price List,
a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-location fees
for the same co-location service charged by the Exchange's
affiliates NYSE MKT LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 70206 (August 15, 2013), 78 FR 51765 (August 21,
2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LCN CSP Access
    The ``Liquidity Center Network'' (``LCN'') is a local area network
available in the data center. A User is currently able to act as a
content service provider (a ``CSP'' User) and deliver services to
another User in the data center (a ``Subscribing'' User).\6\ These
services could include, for example, order routing/brokerage services
and/or data delivery services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67666 (August 15,
2012), 77 FR 50742 (August 22, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange offers CSP Users specific, dedicated 10
gigabyte (``Gb'') LCN connections (``LCN CSP'') that would allow CSP
Users to send data to, and communicate with, all their properly
authorized Subscribing Users at once. In such a case, a Subscribing
User would receive the services via its standard LCN connection and
would be charged an initial and monthly fee (``CSP Subscriber fee'')
reflecting the benefit of receiving services from the CSP User in this
manner.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. Previously, the Exchange also offered a one Gb LCN CSP
connection, but it was discontinued as it was no longer utilized by
Users. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72721 (July 30,
2014), 79 FR 45562 (August 5, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Users no longer utilize the LCN CSP connection offering.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to discontinue LCN CSP connections,
and to remove references to LCN CSP access and CSP Subscriber fees from
the Price List. A CSP User would remain able to deliver services to a
Subscribing User via direct cross connect, as is currently the case and
as was the case prior to the introduction of the LCN CSP connection
offering.
Bundled Network Access
    A User is currently able to select from two ``bundled''
connectivity options when connecting to the data center: ``Bundled
Network Access Option 1'' and ``Bundled Network Access Option 2''.\8\
The Exchange proposes to discontinue Bundled Network Access Option 2,
as Users no longer utilize it, and to remove references to related
pricing from the Price List. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
rename ``Bundled Network Access Option 1'' as ``Bundled Network
Access,'' as it would be the sole remaining option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Previously, the Exchange offered other ``bundled''
connectivity options, but they were discontinued as they were no
longer utilized by Users. See id., at 45562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IP Network Access
    The Internet protocol (``IP'') network is a local area network
available in the data center.\9\ IP network access is offered in 1, 10
and 40 Gb capacities. The Exchange proposes to delete a statement in
the Price List that the 40 Gb circuit of the IP network is expected to
be available no later than April 15, 2016,\10\ as such statement is
obsolete. This proposed change would have no impact on pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74222 (February 6,
2015), 80 FR 7888 (February 12, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-05) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to
include IP network connections and fiber cross connects between a
User's cabinet and a non-User's equipment).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76368 (November 5,
2015), 80 FR 70027 (November 12, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-54) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to
include IP 40 Gb network connections).

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

General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \11\ and
(iii) a User would only incur one charge for the particular co-location
service described herein, regardless of whether the User connects only
to the Exchange or to the Exchange and one or both of its
affiliates.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \12\ See SR-NYSE-2013-59, supra note 5, at 51766. The Exchange's
affiliates have also submitted substantially the same proposed rule
change to propose the changes described herein. See SR-NYSEMKT-2016-
57 and SR-NYSEArca-2016-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\14\ in particular, because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because discontinuing the LCN
CSP and Bundled Network Access Option 2 in the data center would permit
the Exchange to streamline the offerings available to Users in the data
center by eliminating services that Users no longer utilize and, by
removing references to related pricing from the Price List, make the
Price List easier to read, understand and administer. The Exchange
believes that, because no Users utilize such services, it would be
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to discontinue the services.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to discontinue the
services in the data center that are no longer utilized by Users and to
remove references to related pricing from the Price List because the
Exchange offers the services described herein as a convenience to
Users, but in doing so incurs certain costs, including costs related to
the data center facility, hardware and equipment and costs related to
personnel required for initial installation and ongoing monitoring,
support and maintenance of such services. Removing services that Users
do not utilize from the co-location offerings would contribute to a
more efficient process for managing the various services offered to
Users, which would improve the utilization of the data center
resources, both with respect to personnel and infrastructure, including
hardware and software.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating a reference in the Price
List that states that the 40 Gb circuit of the IP network is expected
to be available no later than April 15, 2016, is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the reference is obsolete and
no longer has an impact on pricing. The proposed change would result in
the removal of obsolete text from the Price List and therefore add
greater clarity to the Price List regarding the services offered and
the applicable fees.
    For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, in addition to the proposed services being
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis
(i.e., the same products and services are available to all Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that discontinuing the LCN CSP and Bundled
Network Access Option 2 in the data center and removing references to
related pricing and obsolete text from the Price List would not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because no Users utilize the
services proposed to be discontinued. A CSP User would remain able to
deliver services to a Subscribing User via direct cross connect, as is
currently the case and as was the case prior to the introduction of the
LCN CSP connection offering. The proposed rule change is not intended
to address competitive issues.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its services and related fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSE-2016-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSE-2016-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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 No. SR-NYSE-2016-39, and should be
submitted on or before June 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13473 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41647-41648]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-2016-0049]

Pipeline Safety: Gaseous Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is seeking public comment on a PHMSA-authored report
titled: ``Background for Regulating the Transportation of Carbon
Dioxide in a Gaseous State,'' which is available in the docket at
PHMSA-2016-0049. The report evaluates existing and potential future
gaseous carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines and outlines PHMSA's approach
for establishing minimum pipeline safety standards for the
transportation of carbon dioxide in a gaseous state to fulfill the
requirements of section 15 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (the Act). The Act requires the
Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe minimum safety standards for
the transportation of carbon dioxide by pipeline in a gaseous state.''
PHMSA is seeking to better understand the possible effects of the
regulatory scenarios presented within the report, as well as the
locations and extent of gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines, and is
requesting feedback on the validity and applicability of these effects
and the location and extent of these pipelines. As PHMSA does not
currently regulate these pipelines, its ability to reach out and locate
operators of gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines has been limited and it
is unclear if PHMSA's current information is comprehensive.

DATES: The public comment period for this notice ends July 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket ID PHMSA-
2016-0049 by any of the following methods:
     E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140, on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the Docket ID at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If
you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments,
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note:  Comments will be posted without changes or edits to
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information
provided.

    Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Lee, Director, Engineering and
Research Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>about the
subject matter in this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 15 of the Act requires the Secretary
of Transportation to ``prescribe minimum safety standards for the
transportation of carbon dioxide by pipeline in a gaseous phase.''
    The Act requires that in ``establishing the standards, the
Secretary shall consider whether applying the minimum safety standards
in part 195 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on
the date of enactment of this paragraph, for the transportation of
carbon dioxide in a liquid state to the transportation of carbon
dioxide in a gaseous state would ensure safety.'' Further, the Act
limited this authority, stating: ``Nothing in this subsection
authorizes the Secretary to regulate piping or equipment used in the
production, extraction, recovery, lifting, stabilization, separation,
or treatment of carbon dioxide or the preparation of carbon dioxide for
transportation by pipeline at production, refining, or manufacturing
facilities.''
    After carefully reviewing the available information with regard to
gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines, PHMSA has been unable to identify
specific gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines or pipeline operators that
would potentially be subject to future regulation per section 15 of the
Act. For instance, in PHMSA's aforementioned report, a 78-mile, low-
pressure gaseous carbon dioxide pipeline was identified as being
located within a gas gathering field. In that instance, the
applicability of future regulations could be unclear. PHMSA's report
outlines much of the information gathered and available to PHMSA, which
appears to support the likelihood that a majority of the carbon dioxide
transported over distances would be in the supercritical fluid state,
thereby subjecting these lines to the existing part 195 regulations,
where applicable.
    PHMSA is seeking public comment to better understand the possible
effects of the regulatory scenarios presented within the report,
information considered within the report, conclusions that could be
drawn from the report, information missing from the report, and to
better understand the locations and extent of gaseous carbon dioxide
pipelines (whether existing or planned). Since PHMSA does not currently
regulate these pipelines, its ability to reach out and locate
potentially affected operators has been limited. PHMSA welcomes views
and updates on the necessity for and approach to regulations for
gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines per section 15 of the Act. Some areas
of interest include:
    1. Comments and suggestions with respect to the information
included within the report, including comments on gaseous carbon
dioxide pipelines and their regulation in general, as well as any
conclusions readers can draw from the information presented.
    2. Identifying gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines or pipeline
operators not already identified in the report that would potentially
be subject to regulation if they are regulated as outlined in the
report per the requirements of section 15 of the Act. Include details,
if available, such as pipeline location and length.
    3. Identifying and discussing likely locations for the future
construction of gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines not already discussed
in the report that would potentially be subject to regulation if
regulated as outlined in the report per the requirements of section 15
of the Act.
    4. Comments on the two potential options for regulating gaseous
carbon dioxide outlined in the report. These options would:
     Regulate the transport of gaseous CO2 entirely under part
192, or
     Regulate the transport under part 192, where appropriate,
with reference to applicable sections of part 195.
    If a particular regulatory approach is more appropriate or
preferable, please provide supporting examples and reasons why. If
against either approach, please provide supporting examples and reasons
for being against the approach.
    5. The report identifies industry projections for carbon dioxide
pipeline need and growth. Please discuss whether these projections are
consistent and accurate with current data. If they have changed, please
discuss how they have changed.
    6. Please comment on any technical standards addressing gaseous
carbon dioxide pipelines that PHMSA could consider incorporating into
any potential regulations.
    7. If PHMSA pursues one of the regulatory scenarios presented
within the report, and as stated in Area #4 above, would a simpler
approach be adequate and responsible at this time? Could PHMSA make a
change to the scope of part 192 to include gaseous carbon dioxide
without any further technical differentiations within the regulations
or without referencing the regulations for carbon dioxide in the
supercritical state per existing part 195 regulations?

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2016-15123 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 46638]
[DOCID:fr11au08-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1780-DR]

Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1780-DR), dated July 24, 2008, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 31, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance in the following areas among those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by
the President in his declaration of July 24, 2008.

    Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Counties for Individual Assistance
and debris removal (Category A) under the Public Assistance program
(already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B],
including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program.)
    Aransas, Bexar, Brooks, Calhoun, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg,
Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, and Victoria Counties for
debris removal (Category A) under the Public Assistance program
(already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B],
including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program.)

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-18440 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77310]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24746]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2017-0496; FRL-11545-01-ORD]

Availability of the Protocol for the Nitrate and Nitrite IRIS
Assessment (Oral)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30-
day public comment period associated with release of the document
Protocol for the Nitrate and Nitrite IRIS Assessment (Oral). This
document communicates the rationale for conducting the human health
assessment of Nitrate and Nitrite, describes screening criteria to
identify relevant literature, outlines the approach for evaluating
study quality, and describes the methods for dose-response analysis.

DATES: The 30-day public comment period begins November 9, 2023 and
ends December 11, 2023. Comments must be received on or before December
11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The Protocol for the Nitrate and Nitrite IRIS Assessment
(Oral) will be available via the internet on the IRIS website at
https://www.epa.gov/iris and in the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-ORD-2017-0496.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the docket, contact
the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; email:
[email protected].
    For technical information on the protocol, contact Mr. Dahnish
Shams, Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information on the IRIS Program and Systematic Review
Protocols

    EPA's IRIS Program is a human health assessment program that
evaluates quantitative and qualitative information on effects that may
result from exposure to chemicals found in the environment. Through the
IRIS Program, EPA provides high quality science-based human health
assessments to support the Agency's regulatory activities and decisions
to protect public health.
    As part of developing a draft IRIS assessment, EPA presents a
methods document, referred to as the protocol, for conducting a
chemical-specific systematic review of the available scientific
literature. EPA is seeking public comment on components of the protocol
including the described strategies for literature searches, criteria
for study inclusion or exclusion, considerations for evaluating study
methods, information management for extracting data, approaches for
synthesis within and across lines of evidence, and methods for
derivation of toxicity values. The protocol serves to inform the
subsequent development of the draft assessment and is made available to
the public. EPA may update the protocol based on the evaluation of the
literature, and any updates will be posted to the docket and on the
IRIS website.

II. How to Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at https://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2017-
0496 for Nitrate/Nitrite, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For information on visiting the EPA Docket Center Public Reading
Room, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The public can submit comments via
www.regulations.gov or email.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number EPA-HQ-ORD-
2017-0496 for nitrate/nitrite. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the closing date will be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if
time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in
the public docket without change and to make the comments available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through https://www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be
CBI or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or as a hard copy at the ORD Docket in
the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

Wayne Cascio,
Director, Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2023-24746 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS> DISTRIBUTION Page __ 1_ of _ 2 Project Name: Petroleum Refining Detailed Study TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 10/ 22/ 2003 Time: 11: 00 Am Company Name: Amendola Eng. Contact Name: Gary Amendola Phone No.: ( 440) 808 6960 Name: Betsy Bicknell Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Petroleum Refining Wastewater Issues TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN Because Gary Amendola worked on refinery dioxin issues with EPA in the 1990s, I called him to discuss the issues related to refinery toxic discharges we had identified in the analysis of TRI release data.

Dioxins. Mr. Amendola described how dioxins are generated from regeneration of catalyst used in naphtha reformers. He explained that there are three types of catalyst regeneration: 1. Semi regenerative  discharges 1500 gal/ yr in 1  2, batches/ year. 2. Cyclic regeneration  refinery has 5 or so units, with one taken down for regeneration at a time. Discharges approx. 8 million gallons/ year. 3. Continuous regeneration  catalyst operated in a fluid bed state, with a slip stream taken of continuously for regeneration.

Regeneration includes several steps:  evacuate catalyst unit;  burn off accumulated coke ;  apply regenerant, one of several chlorinated compounds, such as carbon tetrachloride, hydrochloric acid, chlorine gas, trichloroethane, dichloropropane, to " reactivate" the catalyst;  carry out a final oxidative stage.

Off gases from the regeneration process pass through a caustic scrubber. Scrubber wastewaters capture dioxins are other bi products of the regeneration process. Mr. Amendola indicated that there may be washing steps, with water and caustic, between the regeneration stages.

Because dioxins are hydrophobic, Mr. Amendola indicated that they were attached to small (< 5 micron) particulate matter. A possible treatment approach is to pass the regenerate wastewater through a filter sock and through granulated activated carbon canisters. Mr. Amendola thought that this treatment may have been practiced by a Chevron Texaco refinery in California and a Valero refinery. Spent filter material would need to be disposed of as a dioxin contaminated hazardous waste. Signature: Amendola thought that any producer of higher octane gasoline would have a naphtha reformer. Those with cyclic or semi regenerative process would generate dioxin contaminated wastewaters. Possibly, dioxins would be present only below analytical detection limits or TRI reporting thresholds at facilities with lower flow volumes.

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds ( PACs). Mr. Amendola explained that typical refinery wastewater treatment includes in process steam strippers to remove sulfide and ammonia from sour water and oil separation on oily wastewaters. End of pipe treatment of combined wastewaters is biological treatment. Most refineries have aerated basins, while some have activated sludge carried out in tanks. Many refineries follow biological treatment with sand filters for extra solids removal, followed by activated carbon adsorption columns. Amendola thought that refineries with good solids removal would be unlikely to detect PACs in their final effluent. This suggests that refineries that discharge to POTWs may have higher levels of PACs, because they have less effective solids removal.

Metals. Of the metals with high toxic weighted reported discharges ( selenium, mercury, and vanadium), Mr. Amendola had a passing familiarity with selenium issues at refineries. His recollection was that selenium was difficult to treat ( it is doesn't precipitate with lime).

General Issues. Mr. Amendola thought there may be some housekeeping issues at some refineries. At many refineries, all process areas are covered with concrete, to effect a good separation between process area ( contaminated) stormwater and stormwater from undeveloped areas of the refinery site. He recalled that Chevron Texaco in Los Angeles had a separate stormwater collection system. This collected stormwater is stored in two 14 million gallon tanks and treated by induced air flotation.

NPDES Permits for Contaminated Groundwater Discharges. More and more refineries are treating contaminated groundwater recovered from the refinery site. Limits for the discharge of this treated groundwater are included in the same NPDES permit as process wastewater. Permit writers have stretched the existing effluent guidelines to develop limits, for example, by converting the groundwater flows to " equivalent barrels of crude oil," and then applying the per barrel limitations guidelines to calculate the pounds of pollutant/ day discharge limits.

References: Mr. Amendola offered to provide some background references on wastewater issues at petroleum refineries, including the 1991 MISA BAT report prepared for the Ontario, Canada Ministry of Environment.

TRI Dioxin Issues. Mr. Amendola has been working with the 2000 and 2001 TRI dioxin release data. He mentioned that facilities estimate their releases using whatever tools they have available  monitoring results, sitespecific emission factors, category emission factors, etc. For example, Dow Chemical ( a major dioxin discharger) monitors its wastestreams and analyzes dioxin content in its own labs. In 1995 Dow committed to a 90 percent reduction in corporate dioxin releases by 2005, and they are progressing towards this goal. Mr. Amendola also noted that members of the Chlorine Chemistry Council ( CCC) are concerned about the way they are required to report to TRI the distribution of the 17 dioxin and dioxin like compounds. TRI asks for one distribution per facility or for the facility's one best media specific distribution. Where distributions vary significantly between release media, CCC members are concerned that this can mis characterize their releases. Dow and other CCC members have been providing media specific calculated 2,3,7,8 TCDD toxic equivalents to Dwain Winters, of EPA's National Program Chemical Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( 202.566.1977). The reported TEQ are found on a Chlorine Chemistry Council website: http:// www. c3. org/ sitedata/ test3/ dir. html ( note EPA's TRI website links to this site through the 2000 TRI data release site page).


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 231 (Monday, December 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69024-69025]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1001-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: NYISO Notice: effective date for
implementation of CSR to be effective 3/31/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2722-001.
    Applicants: E. BarreCo Corp LLC.
    Description: Refund Report: Refund Report to 2 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-192-000.
    Applicants: Evolugen Trading and Marketing LP.
    Description: Supplement to October 22, 2021 Evolugen Trading and
Marketing LP, tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 11/24/21.
    Accession Number: 20211124-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-418-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: NYISO Notice: Effective date for
implementation of CSR enhancements to be effective 12/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-486-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rev. to OATT & OA re GDECS 6
Clean-Up & Clarification to Governing Documents to be effective 1/29/
2022.
    Filed Date: 11/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211129-5257.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/20/21

    Docket Numbers: ER22-487-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3870 White Rock Wind West
GIA to be effective 11/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-488-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Formosa Utility
Venture 2nd A&R Generation Interconnection Agreement to be effective
11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-489-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: EAL-MSS-4 Replacement Tariff
to be effective 12/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-490-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Great
River Energy.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2021-
11-30_SA 3741 GRE-MRES-WMMPA Master IA to be effective 12/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-491-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, Ohio Power
Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: American Electric Power
Service Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: AEP
submits one Facilities Agreement re: ILDSA SA No. 1336 to be effective
1/30/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-492-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: PSEG Rate Schedule Cancellations to
be effective 12/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-493-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: LA Ortega Grid WDT1636 SA No
1167 to be effective 1/30/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-494-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: WDAT SGIA for Buckman
Springs Solar to be effective 12/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-495-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-11-30_RAN Seasonal
Construct and Availability based accreditation to be effective 9/1/
2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-496-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-11-30_Minimum Capacity
Obligation Filing to be effective 9/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-497-000.
    Applicants: NG Renewables Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authority to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-498-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-11-30 PSCo-WAPA-Op &
Maint-350-0.1.0-Exh M to be effective 1/30/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-499-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: November 2021 Western WDT
Service Agreement Biannual Filing (SA 17) to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5249.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-500-000.
    Applicants: Morongo Transmission LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Annual TRBAA Filing to be
effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5251.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-501-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: November 2021 Western
Interconnection Biannual Filing (TO SA 59) to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20211130-5255.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

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

    Dated: November 30, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26385 Filed 12-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39491-39493]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2016-002; ER10-2011-004.
    Applicants: PPL Montana, LLC, PPL EnergyPlus, LLC.
    Description: The PPL Northwest Companies submit a Supplement to
Notice of Change in Status Regarding Market-Based Rate Authority.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5198.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2474-002; ER10-2475-002.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company, Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Sierra
Pacific Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2719-007; ER10-2718-007; ER10-2578-009; ER10-
2633-007; ER10-2570-007; ER10-2717-007; ER10-3140-006.
    Applicants: East Coast Power Linden Holding, LLC, Cogen
Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., Fox Energy Company, LLC, Birchwood
Power Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power Company LLC, EFS Parlin
Holidngs, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of East Coast
Power Linden Holding, LLC, et al. under ER10-2719, et. al.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3736-001.
    Applicants: Pocahontas Prairie Wind, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region
of Pocahontas Prairie Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1566-000, ER12-1566-001.
    Applicants: Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC MBR Application Second
Supplement.
    Filed Date: 6/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120618-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1633-003.
    Applicants: U.S. Energy Partners, LLC.
    Description: U.S. Energy MBR Compliance Filing to be effective 6/
15/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2071-001.
    Applicants: Verde Energy USA New York, LLC.
    Description: Amended MBR Application to be effective 8/20/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2095-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Filing of a Common Use Agreement to be effective 8/27/
2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2096-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Amendment to Blythe Energy, LLC LGIA to be effective
8/25/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2097-000.
    Applicants: Moraine Wind LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2098-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Amended Restated Agreement No. 1744 Among NYISO, NYPA,
and Marble River to be effective 6/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2099-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 607R15 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be
effective 6/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2100-000.
    Applicants: Vermont Transco, LLC.
    Description: Vermont Transco LLC Updated Exhibit A for the 1991
Transmission Agreement to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2101-000.
    Applicants: Moraine Wind II LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2102-000.
    Applicants: New Harvest Wind Project LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2104-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: METC Filing of Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/
27/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2105-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Attachment C--O&M Annual Update to be effective 9/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2106-000.
    Applicants: Rugby Wind LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2107-000.
    Applicants: Trimont Wind I LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2108-000.
    Applicants: MinnDakota Wind LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2109-000.
    Applicants: Northern Iowa Windpower II LLC.
    Description: Tariff Revisions to be effective 6/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2110-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: FPL Revisions to FKEC Rate Schedule FERC No. 322 to be
effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 26, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16230 Filed 7-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53432-53433]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21794]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12843-003; Project No. 14099-000]

Free Flow Power Corporation; Northland Power Mississippi River
LLC; Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing
Applications

    On January 11, 2011, Free Flow Power Corporation (Free Flow) and
Northland Power Mississippi River LLC (Northland) filed preliminary
permit applications, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of developing hydropower projects
hydropower on the Mississippi River, near the town of St. Gabriel, in
Iberville Parish, Louisiana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit,
if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed projects are described as follows:

    Free Flow's hydrokinetic Project, Project No. 12843-003 would
consist of: (1) Up to 2,550 SmartTurbine generating units installed
in arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 102,000 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables
would convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a
transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of
231,970,950 kilowatt-hours (kWh), which would be sold to a local
utility.
    Northland's hydrokinetic Project, Project No. 14099-000 would
consist of: (1) Up to 380 TREK generating units installed in a
matrix on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 95,000 kilowatts; (3) shielded
underwater cables would convey each matrix power to a substation;
and (4) a transmission line would interconnect with the power grid.
The proposed project would have an average annual generation of
832,000,000 kWh, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicants Contact: For Free Flow: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow
Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114;

phone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For Northland: Tim Richardson, 30 St. Clair
Avenue West 17th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; phone (416) 820-
9521.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text-only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12843-003, or P-14099-000) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: August 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21794 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P