[Federal Register: December 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 70366-70367]
[DOCID:fr11de07-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56888; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-124]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Closing Auction Time for Exchange Traded Funds

December 3, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 30, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange''), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), 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 NYSE Arca. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders it 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.35(e)(3)(E) in order to change the closing auction time for Exchange
Traded Funds (``ETFs'') from 1:15 p.m. Pacific Time (``PT'') to 1 p.m.
PT. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nysearca.com
.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.35(e)(3)(E) in order to change the closing auction time for Exchange
Traded Funds (``ETFs'') from 1:15 p.m. PT to 1 p.m. PT.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend the manner in which
the closing auction operates, merely the time at which the closing
auction for ETFs will occur. See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, closing auctions for ETFs listed on NYSE Arca are
conducted at 1:15 p.m. PT. Historically, ETFs were frequently hedged by
transactions in futures traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
which closes its equity futures trading session at 1:15 p.m. PT.
Certain marketplaces, however, such as the American Stock Exchange
(``Amex''), which previously was the only exchange actively pursuing
these listings, does not offer after-hours trading. Instead, conducting
the closing auction for ETFs at 1:15 p.m. PT was the means by which
Amex accommodated this hedge strategy. Other marketplaces simply
followed this arbitrary timing structure, including NYSE Arca.
    Now, however, there is no longer any meaningful reason for NYSE
Arca to conduct its Closing Auctions for ETFs at 1:15 p.m. PT as
opposed to 1 p.m. PT for all equities. The historical reasoning is
outdated and is not practical for securities listed on NYSE Arca,
because it offers no benefit to investors in our marketplace that
offers trading in three distinct sessions, one of which extends until 5
p.m. PT. Indeed, the arbitrary time for closing auctions for ETFs may
lead to unnecessary confusion. For starters, NYSE Arca offers a Late
Trading Session for all equities, including ETFs, from the close of the
Core Trading Session until 5 p.m. PT. In addition, fund managers
calculate the

daily net asset value (``NAV'') of ETFs when equity markets close,
typically 1 p.m. PT. Since ETFs trade until 1:15 p.m. PT, their closing
price, which is the recorded price of the last trade, is often
different than its NAV, calculated 15 minutes earlier. By synchronizing
the closing auctions for ETFs with the close of the Exchange's Core
Trading Session, an ETF's closing price will be better aligned with its
NAV.
    The Exchange intends this system change to be effective on filing
and operative on January 1, 2008. By amending the time of the Closing
Auction for ETFs from 1:15 p.m. PT to 1 p.m. PT, users will benefit
from a better alignment of an ETF's NAV and closing price.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ 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 facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, NYSE Arca has given the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date on which the
Exchange filed the proposed rule change. See 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NYSEArca-2007-124 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-NYSEArca-2007-124. 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 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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-124 and should
be submitted on or before January 2, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23918 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51448-51449]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-E-5802]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; VYLEESI

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for VYLEESI and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug
product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) are incorrect may submit either electronic
or written comments and ask for a redetermination by October 19, 2020.
Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination
regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence
during the regulatory review period by February 16, 2021. See
``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before October 19, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 19, 2020. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-E-5802 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; VYLEESI.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with Sec.  10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and
other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's
posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18,
2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory

review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, VYLEESI
(bremelanotide), which is indicated for the treatment of premenopausal
women with acquired, generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder
(HSDD) as characterized by low sexual desire that causes marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty and is not due to a co-existing
medical or psychiatric condition, problems with the relationship, or
the effects of a medication or drug substance. The product is not
indicated for treatment of HSDD in postmenopausal women or in men and
is not indicated to enhance sexual performance. Subsequent to this
approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for
VYLEESI (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,579,968 and 6,794,489) from Palatin
Technologies, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in
determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated January 21, 2020, FDA advised the USPTO that this human
drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the
approval of VYLEESI represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that
FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
VYLEESI is 6,721 days. Of this time, 6,265 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 456 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
January 27, 2001. The applicant claims March 13, 2002, as the date the
investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However,
FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was January 27, 2001,
which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the first IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: March 23,
2018. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for VYLEESI (NDA 210557) was initially submitted on
March 23, 2018.
    3. The date the application was approved: June 21, 2019. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 210557 was approved on June 21,
2019.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,826 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42,
1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: August 13, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-18240 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 26)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6541]
[DOCID:fr10fe09-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 314

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0341]

Applications for Food and Drug Administration Approval to Market
a New Drug; Postmarketing Reports; Reporting Information About
Authorized Generic Drugs; Withdrawal

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Direct final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published in the
Federal Register of September 29, 2008 (73 FR 56487), a direct final
rule amending its regulations to require that the holder of a new drug
application (NDA) submit certain information regarding authorized
generic drugs in an annual report to a central office in the agency.
The comment period closed December 15, 2008. FDA is withdrawing the
direct final rule because the agency received significant adverse
comment.

DATES:  The direct final rule published at 73 FR 56487 on September 29,
2008, is withdrawn as of February 10, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Michelle D.D. Bernstein, Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6362, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA published a direct final rule on
September 29, 2008 (73 FR 56487), that was intended to amend its
regulations to require that the holder of an NDA submit certain
information regarding authorized generic drugs in an annual report to a
central office in the agency. In response to the direct final rule, the
agency received significant adverse comments about the proposed
revisions to the rule.
    Under FDA's direct final rules procedures, the receipt of any
significant adverse comment will result in the withdrawal of the direct
final rule. Thus, this direct final rule is being withdrawn, effective
immediately. Comments received by the agency regarding the withdrawn
rule will be considered in developing a final rule using the usual
Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment procedures.

    Authority:  Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, the direct final rule published on September 29,
2008 (73 FR 56487), is withdrawn.

    Dated: February 5, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-2746 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: October 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 61269]
[DOCID:fr21oc05-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER05-1467-000]

DC Energy Midwest, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

October 14, 2005.
    DC Energy Midwest, LLC (DC Energy) filed an application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The proposed
rate tariff provides for the sales of capacity, energy and ancillary
services at market-based rates. DC Energy also requested waiver of
various Commission regulations. In particular, DC Energy requested that
the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by DC
Energy.
    On October 12, 2005, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--South, granted the request
for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by DC
Energy should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protests is November 14, 2005.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
DC Energy is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
DC Energy, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of DC Energy's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5814 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8580-8583]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-21-000; Docket No. CP22-22-000]

Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC; Venture Global CP Express, LLC;
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the
Proposed CP2 LNG and CP Express Project, Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues, and Schedule for Environmental Review

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the CP2 LNG and CP Express
Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC (CP2 LNG) and Venture Global CP Express,
LLC (CP Express) in Jasper and Newton Counties, Texas and Calcasieu and
Cameron Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EIS in its
decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the
public interest. The schedule for preparation of the EIS is discussed
in the Schedule for Environmental Review section of this notice.
    As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have
about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result
whenever it considers the issuance of an authorization. This gathering
of public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' By notice issued on
April 27, 2021 in Docket No. PF21-1-000, the Commission opened a
scoping period during CP2 LNG and CP Express' planning process for the
Project and prior to filing a formal application with the Commission, a
process referred to as ``pre-filing.'' CP2 LNG and CP Express have now
filed an application with the Commission, and staff intends to prepare
an EIS that will address the concerns raised during the pre-filing
scoping process and comments received in response to this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document, including
comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and any relevant
information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts
affecting the quality of the human environment. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 11, 2022. Further details on how to
submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of
this notice.
    As mentioned above, during the pre-filing process, the Commission
opened a scoping period which expired on May 27, 2021; however,
Commission staff continued to accept comments during the entire pre-
filing process. Staff also held three virtual scoping sessions to take
oral scoping comments. All substantive written and oral comments
provided during pre-filing will be addressed in the EIS. Therefore, if
you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission during the
pre-filing process in Docket No. PF21-1-000, you do not need to file
those comments again.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed pipeline facilities. The
company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement
agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the
right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the
company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances,
compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state
law. The Commission does not grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise
of eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to
handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over
these matters.
    CP2 LNG and CP Express provided landowners with a fact sheet
prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On
My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other
landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC
website (www.ferc.gov) under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner
Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can
provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file
with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by
clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of
filing you are making; a comment on a particular project is considered
a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
21-000 and CP22-22-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street

NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other
carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings
made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the
documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register
for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project, the Project Purpose and Need, and
Expected Impacts

    CP2 LNG plans to construct and operate a new 20 million tonnes per
annum liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Cameron Parish,
Louisiana. The liquefaction and storage facilities would be on the
mainland, while the ship loading and associated facilities would be
constructed on Monkey Island between Calcasieu Pass and the Calcasieu
Ship Channel (collectively referred to as the LNG terminal).
    CP Express would construct and operate approximately 85 miles of
new 48-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline originating in Jasper County,
Texas and terminating at the proposed LNG terminal. In addition, a 6-
mile-long, 24-inch-diameter lateral pipeline and 187,000-horsepower
(hp) Moss Lake Compressor Station would be constructed in Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana. The pipeline facilities would be capable of
transporting 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the LNG
terminal.
    CP2 LNG and CP Express would construct the Project in two phases;
Phase 1 would consist of construction of the pipelines, 69,600-hp
compression at the Moss Lake Compressor Station, the LNG terminal
marine loading berths, and about half of the LNG terminal facilities.
Phase 2 would consist of the remaining 117,400-hp compression at the
compressor station and the remaining LNG terminal facilities.
    According to CP2 LNG, its Project would transport domestically
produced natural gas for liquefaction, storage, and export to overseas
markets. According to CP Express, its Project would create the firm
transportation capacity needed to transport the quantity of feed gas
required for the proposed LNG export operations from supply points to
the LNG terminal facilities.
    The Project would consist of the following facilities:
     A liquefaction plant consisting of 18 liquefaction blocks
and support facilities, each with a nameplate capacity of 1.1 million
tonnes per annum;
     six pretreatment systems;
     four 200,000 cubic meter full containment LNG storage
tanks;
     carbon capture and sequestration facilities;
     a combined-cycle natural gas turbine power plant capable
of generating 1,440 megawatts;
     two LNG loading docks;
     two marine berths capable of receiving ocean-going LNG
carriers;
     two 42-inch outside diameter cryogenic LNG transfer lines,
one boil-off-gas pipeline, and one utility line connecting the marine
facilities on Monkey Island to the mainland LNG terminal site;
     one 85.4-mile-long, 48-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;
     one 6.0-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter natural gas lateral
pipeline;
     one new 187,000-hp compressor station near Moss Lake,
Louisiana;
     five meter stations at interconnects with existing
pipelines;
     a gas gate station within the LNG terminal site; and
     other appurtenant facilities.
    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact
FERC at [email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the environmental information provided by CP2 LNG and CP
Express, construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about
737.3 acres for the LNG terminal and 1,724.3 acres of land for the
pipeline and associated aboveground facilities. Following construction,
CP2 LNG and CP Express would maintain about 645.4 acres for operation
of the LNG terminal and 606.6 acres for operation of the pipeline and
associated aboveground facilities. CP2 LNG and CP Express would restore
the remaining acreage to former uses. About 44 percent of the proposed
pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-
way.
    Based on an initial review of CP2 LNG and CP Express' proposal and
public comments received during the pre-filing process, Commission
staff have identified several expected impacts that deserve attention
in the EIS. Construction and operation of the LNG terminal and marine
facilities would result in impacts on waterbodies and wetlands due to
crossings, permanent fill, and dredging, as well as impacts on visual
resources, noise and air quality. The Project pipeline and associated
aboveground facilities would result in impacts on waterbodies,
wetlands, cropland, and forested land, as well as noise and air
quality. In addition to these Project impacts, landowners along the
route may also be affected by construction and operation of other
proposed residential, road improvement, and utility projects. We have
identified five environmental justice communities that could be
affected by the Project. Individuals within these communities have been
included on the Commission's environmental mailing list for the
Project, as further explained in the Environmental Mailing List section
of this notice.

The NEPA Process and the EIS

    The EIS issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could
occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed
Project under the relevant general resource areas:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     socioeconomics and environmental justice populations;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help
Commission staff focus its analysis on the issues that may have a
significant effect on the human environment.
    The EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the
issues. The U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
National Marine Fisheries Service are cooperating agencies in the
preparation of the EIS.\2\ Staff will prepare a draft EIS which will be
issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely
comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise
the document, as necessary,

before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be available
in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary \3\ and the
Commission's natural gas environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant email notification
when the environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Section 1501.8. (2021).
    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives Under Consideration

    The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives that are technically
and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action.\4\ Alternatives currently under consideration include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 1508.1(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The no-action alternative, meaning the Project is not
implemented;
     LNG terminal site alternatives;
     pipeline system alternatives;
     pipeline route alternatives; and
     compressor station aboveground facility site alternatives.
    With this notice, the Commission requests specific comments
regarding any additional potential alternatives to the proposed action
or segments of the proposed action. Please focus your comments on
reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and
pipeline routes) that meet the Project objectives, are technically and
economically feasible, and avoid or lessen environmental impact.

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission initiated section 106 consultation for
the Project in the notice issued on April 27, 2021, with the applicable
State Historic Preservation Office, and other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public to solicit their views and
concerns regarding the Project's potential effects on historic
properties.\5\ This notice is a continuation of section 106
consultation for the Project. The Project EIS will document findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

    On December 16, 2021, the Commission issued its Notice of
Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted
other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to
complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the
request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of
issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS for the Project. This
notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for
completion of the final EIS for the Project, which is based on an
issuance of the draft EIS in July 2022.

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--February 10, 2023
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline \6\--May 11, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Permits and Authorizations

    The table below lists the anticipated permits and authorizations
for the Project required under federal law. This list may not be all-
inclusive and does not preclude any permit or authorization if it is
not listed here. Agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special
expertise may formally cooperate in the preparation of the Commission's
EIS and may adopt the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related
to this Project. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency
status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided
under the Public Participation section of this notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Agency                               Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC...................................  Section 3 of the Natural Gas
                                          Act.
                                         Section 7 of the Natural Gas
                                          Act.
U.S. Department of Energy..............  Authorization to export LNG by
                                          vessel to Free Trade Agreement
                                          (FTA) and non-FTA nations.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers...........  Section 404 of the Clean Water
                                          Act.
                                         Section 10 of the Rivers and
                                          Harbors Act.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.........  Section 7 of the Endangered
                                          Species Act Consultation.
National Marine Fisheries Service......  Section 7 of the Endangered
                                          Species Act Consultation.
                                         Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
                                          Conservation Management Act
                                          Consultation.
                                         Marine Mammal Protection Act
                                          Consultation.
Louisiana Department of Environmental    Title V and Prevention of
 Quality.                                 Significant Deterioration of
                                          the Clean Air Act.
                                         Section 401 Water Quality
                                          Certification.
Railroad Commission of Texas...........  Section 401 Water Quality
                                          Certification.
Louisiana Department of Natural          Coastal Use Permit.
 Resources.
Louisiana Department of Culture,         Section 106 of the National
 Recreation, and Tourism.                 Historic Preservation Act.
Texas Historical Commission............  Section 106 of the National
                                          Historic Preservation Act.
Federal Aviation Administration........  Notice of Proposed Construction
                                          or Alteration of Navigable
                                          Airspace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in

the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors,
whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own
homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone
who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with
their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing
list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related
to this environmental review are sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP22-21-000 and CP22-22-000
in your request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please
be sure to include your name and the correct address. If you are
requesting to delete your address from the mailing list, please include
your name and address as it appeared on this notice. This email address
is unable to accept comments.

OR

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP22-21 and CP22-22). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: February 9, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03214 Filed 2-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21294-21296]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08858]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0111]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Ford Motor Company

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA requests public comment on an application for exemption
from Ford Motor Company (Ford) to allow motor carriers to operate
Ford's Transit commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that do not meet the
exhaust system location requirements in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSR). The FMCSRs require (1) the exhaust system
of a bus powered by a gasoline engine to discharge to the atmosphere at
or within 6 inches forward of the rearmost part of the bus and (2) the
exhaust system of every truck and truck tractor to discharge to the
atmosphere at a location to the rear of the cab or, if the exhaust
projects above the cab, at a location near the rear of the cab. Based
on the results of performance-based tests it has conducted to measure
the concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) in the occupant compartment
of the Transit-based CMVs, Ford believes that the location of the
exhaust system on these vehicles, as currently designed, will maintain
a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety achieved without the

exemption. Ford is requesting the temporary exemption in advance of
petitioning FMCSA to conduct a rulemaking to amend 49 CFR 393.83.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2015-0111 using any of the
following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You may find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site as well as
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you would like
notification that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). On August 20,
2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section
4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public with an opportunity to inspect the information
relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have
been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must state the reason
for doing so. If the decision is to grant the exemption, the notice
must specify the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which an exemption is
granted. The notice must specify the effective period of the exemption
(up to 2 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption.
The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Ford Application for Exemption

    Ford applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.83 to allow motor
carriers to operate Ford-manufactured Transit-based CMVs that do not
comply with the regulation's exhaust system location requirements. A
copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the
beginning of this notice.
    Section 393.83 of the FMCSRs, ``Exhaust systems,'' includes
requirements regarding the location of exhaust systems on CMVs to
ensure that exhaust fumes will not affect the driver's alertness or
health or the health of passengers. Specifically, section 393.83(c)
states that ``The exhaust system of a bus powered by a gasoline engine
shall discharge to the atmosphere at or within 6 inches forward of the
rearmost part of the bus,'' and section 393.83(e) provides that ``The
exhaust system of every truck and truck tractor shall discharge to the
atmosphere at a location to the rear of the cab or, if the exhaust
projects above the cab, at a location near the rear of the cab.''
However, the exhaust system on Ford Transit vehicles for Model Year
2015 and newer is located approximately (1) 20 inches forward of the
rearmost part of the medium/long wheelbase bus or van (truck)
configuration, and (2) 46 inches forward of the rearmost part of the
extended length bus or van (truck) configuration.
    In its application, Ford notes that while its Transit-based CMVs
may not satisfy the specific exhaust system location requirements in
the FMCSRs, it has several internal requirements applicable to the
design of the tailpipe system that ensure the system will provide high
levels of safety for its customers. Specifically, Ford states:

    In particular, Ford's requirements address passenger compartment
exhaust gas intrusion and management of high temperature components.
These requirements include testing of the system and basic design
requirements for the location of the tailpipe in relation to
underbody components like the brake lines and fuel lines.
    Most significantly Ford uses internal performance based tests
that demonstrate the system achieves a level of safety equivalent to
or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by
complying with the regulation. The main test of interest is the
Carbon Monoxide Concentration test. This performance based test uses
CO monitors at various locations in the vehicle to measure the
concentration of CO ingress into the occupant compartment (from
vehicles' own powertrain and exhaust system) under various driving
conditions including idle and top speed.

    Ford tested the 2015 model year Transit in accordance with ``Ford
global common engineering test procedures,'' which limits carbon
monoxide (CO) levels to 27 parts-per-million (ppm) for a 30 minute Time
Weighted Average (TWA) during continuous driving. Ford states that that
limit is based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Acute
Exposure Guideline Level limits for CO exposure for 8 hour TWA, which
is more severe than both the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration's (OSHA) permissible

exposure limit of 50 ppm for an 8 hour TWA and the National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) permissible exposure limit
of 35 ppm for a 10 hour TWA. Under ``worst-case conditions,'' Ford
measured the CO level to be 17 ppm for the Model year 2015 Transit,
well below the EPA, OSHA, and NIOSH limits.
    Additionally Ford states that it has internal requirements to
establish the appropriate clearance required between a vehicle and the
ground to meet a minimum level of on-road functionality. Ford has
specific departure angle requirements for their vehicle to reduce
tailpipe contact with the ground, curbs, ramps, etc., during various
driving modes which may result in damage to the exhaust system that may
adversely affect the exhaust function. Ford implied that the tailpipe
placement used on its 2015 and future Transit-based passenger vehicles
protects the exhaust system from operational damage that might expose
passengers to dangerous levels of exhaust gases.
    The exemption application would apply to Model Year 2015 Transit-
based gas bus models (all gross vehicle weight ratings), vans over
10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating, and corresponding future
Transit-based production model years. Ford estimates the annual
production of these vehicles to be similar to the current Ford
Econoline vehicle, which is less than 50,000 vehicles annually.
    Ford acknowledges that the exhaust system location requirements in
section 393.83 are intended to ensure that exhaust gases do not seep
into the passenger compartment of the vehicle. However, Ford believes
that the performance-based testing that it has conducted demonstrates
that the design of the exhaust system for the Model Year 2015 and later
Ford Transit CMVs (1) results in CO exposure limits that are well below
EPA, OSHA, and NIOSH established thresholds, and (2) will maintain a
level of safety that is equivalent to the level of safety achieved
without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on Ford's application for an
exemption from 49 CFR 393.83. All comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this
notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the
docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this
notice.
    Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in
the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In
addition to late comments, FMCSA will continue to file relevant
information in the public docket that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

    Issued on: April 13, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-08858 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Email Correspondence between EPA and VA DEQ

November 2010

RE: Releases related to field constructed tanks

 (DEQ)

to:

EPA

12/07/2010 02:21 PM

Additional information on the Craney Island sites.

1)  The estimated recovery to date for Tank 125 (PC#1994-0101) is about

17,000 gallons.

2)  I initially told you that the plume for Tank 275 (PC#1988-0664) was

about 8 acres, but I believe that was the estimated size for the Tank

275 and Tank 272 plumes combined.  I think the more accurate estimate is

5 acres for Tank 275 and 3 acres for Tank 272.

3)   I am attaching maps for each site showing the fully delineated

plumes.  As you will see from the dates, these were done early on and do

not reflect the remediation that has been done subsequently.  These

plumes are substantially reduced at this time.

Geologist Senior

Remediation Section - Department of Environmental Quality

Tidewater Regional Office

Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462

__________________________________________________________________

  Date:       11/19/2010 02:13 PM

  Subject:    Releases related to field constructed tanks

Below is a quick summation of the cases I think you would be interested

in.

PC#1990-0039 Old Aviation Fuel Tank Farm - Wallops Island Flight

Facility (Opened 7/11/1989)

            The tank farm had different types of tanks.  Three appear to

            have been field constructed.  The product Released was Jet

            Fuel and Aviation Gas.  The tanks, piping and 4,700 tons of

            soil were removed in 1991. The receptor of concern has been

            Town of Chincoteage Water Supply Wells 3A, B, and C,

            although 3A is no longer in use.  No impact to these wells

            has been verified.

In 1958, the base wells across the street shut down due to fuel products

in water

PC#1994-0101 Tank 125 - Craney Island Fuel Depot (Opened 7/11/1993)

            One (1) 2.1 million gallon field constructed tank

            constructed in 1940's, removed from service 1993.

            Product Released: Jet Fuel

            Potential Receptor: Tributary to Craney Island Creek

            Release may have been from the lines to and from the tank

PC#1988-0664 Tank 275 - Craney Island Fuel Depot (Opened 5/16/1986)

            One (1) 2.1 million gallon field constructed tank

            constructed in 1950's and removed from service in mid 1980's

            Product: JP-5

            Threatened receptor: Craney Island Creek - Free product

            found within 20 feet of Craney Island Creek in 1987.

            Release attributed to tank and/or piping failures.  This may

            have involved more than one tank.  Nearby Tank 276 also had

            had a 127,000 gallon overfill in 1996.

            Plume covers between 5 to 8 acres. Volume released estimated

            between 300,000 and 500,000 gallons.  Estimated 143,000

            gallons recovered to date.

PC#2000-5225  Tank 272 - Craney Island Fuel Depot (Opened 5/16/2000)

            One (1 ) 2.1 million gallon field constructed tank

            constructed in the 1950's and taken out of service in May

            2000

            Product: JP-5

            Threatened Receptor: Craney Island Creek

            Release was attributed to piping failures.  I need to check

            the file to see if the tank itself was ruled out.

            Plume covers 3 acres.  Volume released estimated between

            175,000 and 250,000 gallons. Estimated 107,000 gallons

            recovered to date.

PC#2003-5062 Tank 174 - Norfolk Naval Shipyard (Opened 12/2/2002)

            2 million gallon field constructed tank.  Inactive since

            1986.

            Product: #6 Fuel Oil

            Leakage from bottom and wall seams.  Free product was found

            in nearby electrical manhole.

PC#1991-1429 SP Fuel Farm - Norfolk Naval Station (Opened 4/11/1991;

closed 1/6/2009)

            Four field constructed tanks ranging from 230,000 to 565,000

            gallons.  These tanks operated from 1943 to 1992 and stored

            aviation gas. Release may have been due to fuel distribution

            lines.

PC#1988-0665 - Fuel Farm - Oceana Naval Air Station (Opened 10/5/1983)

            Five (5) 570,000 gallon field constructed tanks stored JP-5

            from 1955 to 1997.  Release was from the tanks. Estimated

            56,000 gallons recovered to date.

            Threatened receptor - nearby wetlands.

PC#1988-0666 - Daytank - Oceana Naval Air Station (Opened 10/5/1983)

        One (1) 210,000-gallon tank storing JP-5.  The tank was relined

and is still in use.

There have been multiple releases at this site.  At least one was traced

to holes in the tank.

Two other cases which may have involved field constructed tanks are:

PC#1991-1711 LP Fuel Farm - Norfolk Naval Station

            This site is a 13 acre fuel farm with 4 field constructed

            tanks and 20 regular USTs.  Multiple releases involved.

            Multiple fuel types.   The field constructed tanks are still

            in use. I will have to review the file to determine whether

            the field constructed tanks were involved.  Threatened

            receptor is Bousch Creek Culvert leading to Willoughby Bay.

PC#1991-0436 - The Pier Areas - Norfolk Naval Station

            The CEP area has three 1.2 million gallon field constructed

            USTs which have been relined.  I am not certain whether this

            release was from the tanks or the transmission lines from

            Craney Island.  Product was NSFO and diesel.  Threatened

            receptor is the Elizabeth River.  Sheens were noted on the

            river at one point early on.


[Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 17404]
[DOCID:fr06ap10-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13648-000]

Twin Valleys Public Power District; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

March 31, 2010.
    On January 4, 2010, and revised March 4, 2010 and March 30, 2010,
Twin Valleys Public Power District filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Medicine Creek Dam
Hydroelectric Project located on the Medicine Creek in Frontier County,
Nebraska. The Medicine Creek dam is owned and operated by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 100-
foot-long, 6-foot-diameter steel penstock directing flows from the
existing low-level outlets of Medicine Creek Dam; (2) a powerhouse
containing one Kaplan generating unit having an installed capacity of
800 kilowatts, discharging flows into Medicine Creek; (3) 2-mile-long,
12.5-kilovolt transmission line connecting to an existing transmission
line owned and operated by Twin Valleys Public Power District; and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average
annual generation of 2.0 gigawatt-hours. Since the dam is operated
primarily for irrigation and flood control by Reclamation, the project
would operate seasonally using seasonal flows released for irrigation,
as well as spring runoffs. The project will be located on 18.3 acres of
federal land managed by the Reclamation.
    Applicant Contact: James P. Dietz, General Manager, Twin Valleys
Public Power District, P.O. Box 160, Cambridge, NE 69022; phone: (308)
697-3315.
    FERC Contact: Joseph C. Adamson,<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
website (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
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13648-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7701 Filed 4-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36576-36577]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX20-5-000]

AES North American Development, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 8, 2020, pursuant to sections 211 of the
Federal Power Act,\1\ and Rule 211 and 214 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\2\ AES North American Development, LLC (AES) filed an
application requesting that the Commission issue an order directing San
Diego Gas & Electric Company to provide interconnection and
transmission service for AES's proposed 40 MW Battery Energy Storage
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824j, (2012 & Supp. V. 2017).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of

intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 29, 2020.

    Dated: June 9, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13013 Filed 6-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37525-37527]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD23-3-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725B(5))

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-725B(5), (Mandatory Reliability Standards,
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP-003-9)- Temporary Placeholder
for FERC-725B that is pending approval at OMB.
    No Comments were received on the 60-day notice published on March
30, 2023.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due July 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-725B(5), Mandatory Reliability
Standards, Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP-003-9) to OMB
through www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB Control No:
1902-NEW(FERC-725B(5)) in the subject line of your comments. Comments
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission. You may
submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. RD23-3-000) by
one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review''
field, select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit,''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725B(5) (Mandatory Reliability Standards, Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP-003-9))--Temporary Placeholder for FERC-
725B that is pending approval at OMB
    OMB Control No.: 1902-NEW.
    Type of Request: New collection request for FERC-725B(5)--temporary
placeholder for FERC-725B information collection requirements with
changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: On August 8, 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.\1\ The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added a new section 215 to
the Federal Power Act (FPA),\2\ which requires a Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards,\3\ including requirements for cybersecurity
protection, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once
approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the Electric
Reliability Organization subject to Commission oversight, or the
Commission can independently enforce Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, sec. 1261 et
seq., 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \3\ Section 215 of the FPA defines Reliability Standard as a
requirement, approved by the Commission, to provide for reliable
operation of existing bulk-power system facilities, including
cybersecurity protection, and the design of planned additions or
modifications to such facilities to the extent necessary to provide
for reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. However, the term
does not include any requirement to enlarge such facilities or to
construct new transmission capacity or generation capacity. Id. at
824o(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,\4\
implementing FPA section 215. The Commission subsequently certified the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) as the Electric
Reliability Organization. The Reliability Standards developed by NERC
become mandatory and enforceable after Commission approval and apply to
users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System, as set forth in
each Reliability Standard.\5\ The CIP

Reliability Standards require entities to comply with specific
requirements to safeguard bulk electric system (BES) Cyber Systems \6\
and their associated BES Cyber Assets. These standards are results-
based and do not specify a technology or method to achieve compliance,
instead leaving it up to the entity to decide how best to comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Elec. Reliability
Org.; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enf't of
Elec. Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8661 (Feb. 17,
2006), 114 FERC ] 61,104, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR
19814 (Apr. 28, 2006), 114 FERC ] 61,328 (2006).
    \5\ NERC uses the term ``registered entity'' to identify users,
owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System responsible for
performing specified reliability functions with respect to NERC
Reliability Standards. See, e.g., Version 4 Critical Infrastructure
Protection Reliability Standards, Order No. 761, 77 FR 24594 (Apr.
25, 2012), 139 FERC ] 61,058, at P 46, order denying clarification
and reh'g, 140 FERC ] 61,109 (2012). Within the NERC Reliability
Standards are various subsets of entities responsible for performing
various specified reliability functions. We collectively refer to
these as ``entities.''
    \6\ NERC defines BES Cyber System as ``[o]ne or more BES Cyber
Assets logically grouped by a responsible entity to perform one or
more reliability tasks for a functional entity.'' NERC, Glossary of
Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards, at 5 (2020), https://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf (NERC Glossary of Terms).
NERC defines BES Cyber Asset as ``A Cyber Asset that if rendered
unavailable, degraded, or misused would, within 15 minutes of its
required operation, mis-operation, or non-operation, adversely
impact one or more Facilities, systems, or equipment, which, if
destroyed, degraded, or otherwise rendered unavailable when needed,
would affect the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System.
Redundancy of affected Facilities, systems, and equipment shall not
be considered when determining adverse impact. Each BES Cyber Asset
is included in one or more BES Cyber Systems.''
    Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has approved multiple versions of the CIP
Reliability Standards submitted by NERC, partly to address the evolving
nature of cyber-related threats to the Bulk-Power System. High impact
systems include large control centers. Medium impact systems include
smaller control centers, ultra-high voltage transmission, and large
substations and generating facilities. The remainder of the BES Cyber
Systems are categorized as low impact systems. Most requirements in the
CIP Reliability Standards apply to high and medium impact systems;
however, a technical controls requirement in Reliability standard CIP-
003, described below, applies only to low impact systems.
    The Commission is currently revising CIP-003 on this submission of
Docket No. RD23-3-000 to update CIP-003-8 to CIP-003-9.
    The FERC-725B information collection requirements are subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section
3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\7\ OMB's regulations
require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed
by agency rules.\8\ Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB
will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements will not be penalized for failing to
respond to these collections of information unless the collections of
information display a valid OMB control number. The Commission solicits
comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the
information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden
estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated
information techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
    \8\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reliability Standard CIP-003-9 Security Management Controls:
requires entities to specify consistent and sustainable security
management controls that establish responsibility and accountability to
protect BES Cyber Systems against compromise that could lead to mis-
operation or instability on the Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the
Reliability Standard CIP-003-9 is being revised to add requirements for
entities to adopt mandatory security controls for vendor electronic
remote access used at low impact BES Cyber Systems. It is part of the
implementation of the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to
better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System.
    Type of Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for
profit institutions.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the changes
in paperwork burden presented by the proposed revision to CIP
Reliability Standard CIP-003-9 as compared to the current Commission-
approved Reliability Standard CIP-003-8. As discussed above, the
immediate order addresses the area of modification to the CIP
Reliability Standards: adopting mandatory security controls for vendor
electronic remote access used at low impact BES Cyber Systems.
    The CIP Reliability Standards, viewed as a whole, implement a
defense-in-depth approach to protecting the security of BES Cyber
Systems at all impact levels.\10\ The CIP Reliability Standards are
objective-based and allow entities to choose compliance approaches best
tailored to their systems.\11\ The NERC Compliance Registry, as of
January 4, 2023, identifies approximately 1,592 U.S. entities that are
subject to mandatory compliance with Reliability Standards. Of this
total, we estimate that 1,579 entities will face an increased paperwork
burden under Reliability Standard CIP 003-9, estimating that a majority
of these entities will have one or more low impact BES Cyber Systems.
Based on these assumptions, the Commission estimates the total annual
burden and cost as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at 32.
    \11\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure
Protection, Order No. 706, 73 FR 7368 (Feb. 7, 2008), 122 FERC ]
61,040, at P 72 (2008); order on reh'g, Order No. 706-A, 123 FERC ]
61,174 (2008); order on clarification, Order No. 706-B, 126 FERC ]
61,229 (2009).

                                                               RD23-3-000 Commission Order
                        [Mandatory reliability standards for critical infrastructure protection reliability standards CIP-003-9]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Annual  number                   Average burden &
                                    Number of     of  responses   Total number   cost per  response   Total annual  burden hours & total     Cost per
                                   respondents   per respondent   of responses          \12\                     annual cost              respondent ($)
                                            (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)...............  (3) * (4) = (5)....................       (5) / (1)
                                                                            (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create vendor remote access               1,579               1           1,579  60 hrs. $5,340....  94,740 hrs. $8,431,860.............           5,340
 policy (one-time) \13\.
Updates and reviews of vendor             1,579               1           1,579  3.5 hrs. $311.50..  5,527 hrs. (rounded) $491,903......          311.50
 remote access policy (ongoing).
Total burden for FERC-725B(5)    ..............  ..............           3,158  ..................  100,267 hrs. $8,923,763............  ..............
 under CIP-003-9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one-time burden of 94,740 hours that only applies for Year 1
will be averaged over three years (94,740 hours / 3 = 31,580 hours/year
over three years). The number of responses is also averaged over three
years (1,579 responses / 3 = 526.33 responses/year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The loaded hourly wage figure (includes benefits) is based
on the average of three occupational categories for 2022 found on
the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm):
    \13\ This one-time burden applies in Year One only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The responses and burden hours for Years 1-3 will total
respectively as follows for Year 1's one-time burden:

Year 1: 526.33 responses; 31,580 hours
Year 2: 526.33 responses; 31,580 hours
Year 3: 526.33 responses; 31,580 hours

    The responses and burden hours for Years 1-3 will total
respectively as follows for Ongoing and beyond: 1,579 responses and
5,527 hours.
    The following shows the annual cost burden for each group, based on
the burden hours in the table above:

 Year 1: $8,431,860 (One-time)
 Years 2 and 3: $491,903 (Ongoing)

    The paperwork burden estimate includes costs associated with the
initial development of a policy to address requirements relating to:
(1) clarifying the obligations pertaining to electronic access control
for low impact BES Cyber Systems; (2) adopting mandatory security
controls for transient electronic devices (e.g., thumb drives, laptop
computers, and other portable devices frequently connected to and
disconnected from systems) used at low impact BES Cyber Systems; and
(3) requiring responsible entities to have a policy for declaring and
responding to CIP Exceptional Circumstances related to low impact BES
Cyber Systems. Further, the estimate reflects the assumption that costs
incurred in year 1 will pertain to policy development, while costs in
years 2 and 3 will reflect the burden associated with maintaining logs
and other records to demonstrate ongoing compliance.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: June 2, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12241 Filed 6-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Assessment Process.  My name is Steve Risotto; I am a Senior Director at the American Chemistry Council and have been involved in petitions to the Agency regarding the identification of 2 chemicals as priorities under the Work Plan program within the last year.  My comments today focus on general concerns about the prioritization process the Agency used to identify the Work Plan chemicals list, using the evidence for these 2 petitioned chemicals for illustration.

In 2011, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics announced its intent to establish a two-step process to " [quote] identify potential chemicals for near-term review and assignment under TSCA." [unquote]  In February 2012, the Toxics Office released a Methods Document that outlined the prioritization process and identified - for the very first time - 83 chemicals for assessment.  The Methods Document included numerical scores for Hazard, Exposure, and Persistence and Bioaccumulation for each of the listed chemicals, but provided little explanation for the scores beyond a general discussion of the methodology used by the Agency.

In October 2014, OPPT released an update to the Methods Document that removed several substances from the list of Work Plan chemicals because

   * they no longer presented exposure potential from consumer or commercial use,
   * their hazards are well characterized and EPA has a strong risk reduction effort in place, or
   * exposure to the chemical was limited to the workplace and controlled by regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

As these conclusions apply equally to several other substances that were left on the Work Plan list  -  it doesn't appear that EPA conducted a thorough review.  Other chemicals were added to the list in 2014 based on a conclusion that the potential for exposure was greater than originally concluded  -  in spite of the fact that for some of the chemicals nothing had apparently changed.

Neither the 2012 Methods Document nor the 2014 Update was made available for public review and comment prior to its release.  The Toxics Office has provided no subsequent opportunity for stakeholders to provide information on a Work Plan chemical prior to an Agency decision on what actions to take on that chemical.  Waiting until the problem formulation stage to accept comment on whether a Work Plan chemical has - in EPA's words - the "highest potential for exposure and hazard" is too late and is not consistent with Agency guidelines for information quality and transparency; nor is this approach conducive to an efficient and effective program for prioritizing public health concerns.

Because no other avenue existed, ACC submitted petitions under the Information Quality Act relating to the Work Plan listing of two chemicals used exclusively as intermediates in the production of other materials.  The first chemical  -  phthalic anhydride  -  is used as a reactant in the production of phthalate plasticizers and various resins.  The second substance  -  ethylene dichloride or EDC  -  is used exclusively in the production of vinyl chloride monomer used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride.

OPPT assigned both of these chemicals the highest score possible for potential exposure suggesting that  -

   * One - there is widespread exposures through the use of consumer and commercial products despite the fact that neither substance is used in these products, and

   * Secondly - that data exist indicating the presence of both substances in biota and the environment despite the fact that no such data exist for phthalic anhydride and that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention failed to find detectable levels of EDC in the blood of over 4,000 individuals sampled between 2003 and 2006 as part of its biomonitoring program.

Earlier this year, the Toxics Office announced its intent to start the problem formulation stage for EDC and 6 other chlorinated organic substances.  Like EDC, 5 of the other 6 substances are used exclusively in intermediate applications and present minimal exposure potential.  Rather than attempt to formulate a problem that doesn't exist for these chemicals, we strongly encourage OPPT - with the assistance of this Committee - to review the initial basis for their listing in the Work Plan.

As part of this Committee's activities, it is critical that you carefully evaluate the process OPPT used to identify the Work Plan chemicals in its 2012 Methods Document and 2014 Update to ensure that the process is transparent and scientifically sound.  To aid in this review we recommend that  -

   * EPA establish a public docket for the Work Plan chemicals program that will make available all of the information the Agency used for listing the identified chemicals and provide an opportunity for public input on the listing decisions; and
   * OPPT and this Committee conduct a comprehensive refresh of the Work Plan chemicals list to ensure that substances are appropriately prioritized before the Toxics Office initiates any additional steps under the program.

Thank you for your attention.