[Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19494]
[DOCID:fr14ap06-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2150-033]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Washington; Notice of Availability of a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Baker River Hydroelectric
Project

April 7, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a license for the
Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150-033), located on the
Baker River in Whatcom and Skagit counties, Washington and has prepared
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. The draft
EIS was prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 of the National Environmental Policy Act. The
Baker River Project occupies 5,207 acres of lands within the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
    In the draft EIS, Commission staff evaluate the applicant's
proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the project. The draft
EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental
organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license
applicant, and Commission staff.
    Comments should be filed with Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC,
20426. All comments must be filed by May 30, 2006, and should reference
Project No. 2150-033. Comments may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary

link.
    The Commission staff will consider comments made on the draft EIS
in preparing a final EIS for the project. Before the Commission makes a
licensing decision, it will take into account all concerns relevant to
the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from
which the Commission will make its decision.
    Copies of the draft EIS are available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Branch or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link.

Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs- filing/

esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18
CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified
above.\1\ You do not need intervenor status to have your comments
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information, contact Steve Hocking at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary. Project No. 2150-033
 [FR Doc. E6-5555 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35555-35560]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16119]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084; FRL-9981-36--Region 6]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Old Esco
Manufacturing, Superfund Site (Site), located in Greenville, Texas,
from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Texas, through the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), because EPA has determined
that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective September 10, 2018
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that
the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2008-0084, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Brian W. Mueller; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF-RL); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733;
Contact: Brian W. Mueller<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2008-0084. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without

going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

City of Greenville Municipal Bldg., 2821 Washington Street, Greenville,
TX 75401, Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours of Operation: Monday
thru Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Contact:
Brian W. Mueller:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours of operation: Monday thru
Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Records Management Center,
Central File Room, Technical Park Center Bld. E, 1st Floor, Room 1003,
12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, TX 78753, Telephone Numbers: (512) 239-
2900 and<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours of operation: Monday thru Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 6SF-RL 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Old Esco Manufacturing (Site), from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that
appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in
Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain
eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Old Esco Manufacturing
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Texas prior to developing this
direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-
published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the state, through the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from
the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper,
Greenville Herald Banner. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day
public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site from the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Old Esco Manufacturing (``Old Esco'' or ``site'') Superfund
Site (CERCLIS ID TXD980573808) is located at 500 Forrester Street,
Greenville, Hunt County, Texas. The geographic coordinates of the Site
are Latitude 33.138732[deg] N and Longitude -96.075961[deg] W. The
facility, which is currently abandoned, is situated on a

4.7-acre tract of land owned by the City of Greenville.
    The boundaries of the Site are surrounded by fencing. The Site is
bordered to the north by Forrester Street, to the east by a residential
area and vacant lot, to the south by the frontage road of Interstate 30
and a drainage pathway to Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the
Sabine River, and to the west by a private lake. The Site consisted of
several attached buildings that form one main building (125 by 500
feet), a small shed (15 by 20 feet), and vacant land. A former soil and
gravel parking lot is located on the north and west sides of the
building.
    Esco began operations at the Site in the late 1940s, leasing the
property and building, until approximately 1970, when the company
relocated to another property in Greenville, Texas. In 1983, Esco
purchased the Site and owned it until it defaulted for non-payment of
taxes in 2001. Esco manufactured electrical transformers and high
voltage switchgear for electrical distribution at the Site. Other
manufacturing operations at the Site included metal fabrication,
welding, grinding, sandblasting, silver electroplating, and painting.
Completed transformers from the facility were either shipped dry (i.e.,
empty of coolant) or were filled with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
dielectric oil, depending on the requirements of the purchaser.
    PCBs are mixtures of synthetic organic chemicals that were commonly
used for various applications from approximately 1929 until 1979. PCBs
were regulated under a series of EPA actions culminating with a ban in
1979 on manufacturing, processing, distribution, and use of PCBs under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Items such as transformers and
hydraulic fluids were identified as high-risk sources and were targeted
for accelerated phase-out.
    In July 1980, the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR)
received a complaint about the historic disposal of transformer oil by
Esco on the property. The investigation by TDWR revealed the presence
of PCBs at concentrations of 760, 8,400, and 85,000 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) in the soils. In April 1981, the TDWR recommended that
Esco conduct an extent-of-contamination survey within 180 days and
develop a removal plan that would eliminate the PCB-contaminated soil
from the Site. In 1990, Esco filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy without
conducting the cleanup. In 1991, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy was
converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In 2003, the (TCEQ) conducted a
Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment, and installed one new
monitoring well and collected 23 surface and subsurface soil samples.
Chemical analysis of the surface soil samples indicated the presence of
the PCB, Aroclor-1260 in concentrations ranging from 0.338 to 2,390 mg/
kg. Chemical analysis of the subsurface soil samples indicated the
presence of Aroclor-1260 at a concentration of 12.2 mg/kg. Ground water
was encountered at approximately 10 to 15 feet below ground surface
(bgs). Chemical analysis of the ground water samples collected from two
monitoring wells indicated the presence of Aroclor-1260.
    In 2004, the TCEQ formally referred the Site to EPA Region 6 for
assistance. From 2005 through 2007, EPA's removal program conducted
numerous field sampling and assessment activities at the Site and
adjacent properties to determine the extent of contamination and for
National Priorities List (NPL) Hazard Ranking System scoring purposes.
The Site was proposed to the NPL on March 19, 2008, (73 FR 14742). The
Site was added to the NPL as final on September 3, 2008, (73 FR 51368).

History of EPA CERCLA Removal Actions

    EPA conducted two Time Critical Removal Actions which began in
August 2008 and September 2009, respectively. The purpose of these
Removal Actions was to investigate the PCB-contaminated soils in the
residential and other adjacent areas of the Site; and to eliminate the
imminent threat and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare, or to the environment, posed by site-related contamination
associated with the Old Esco Manufacturing Site. Based on removal
assessment activities conducted by EPA, the Old Esco Manufacturing Site
and surrounding residential properties were found to contain elevated
levels of PCBs above the EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
screening level of 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg).

First Removal Action

    The first of these two Removal Actions was completed in January
2009. This Removal Action included:
     Removal of PCB-contaminated soils with a concentration
greater than 1.0 mg/kg from six adjacent residential properties and the
adjacent Texas Department of Transportation road right-of-way drainage
ditches located directly east of the Site.
     Restoration of the six residential properties and roadside
ditches.
     Transportation and disposal of 922 tons of soils in the
CSC Landfill in Avalon, Texas with concentrations of PCBs equal to or
greater than 50.0 mg/kg (TSCA soils) and 4,221 tons of soils in the
Maloy Landfill near Campbell, Texas with concentrations of PCBs less
than 50.0 mg/kg (Non-TSCA soils).
     On-site consolidation and storage of approximately 4,000
cubic yards (yd\3\) of TSCA soils in the building.
     Fencing of the perimeter of the Esco property.
     Removal and disposal of 120 yd\3\ of asbestos-containing
materials from the on-site building in the Maloy Landfill.
     Placement of ripple dams/storm water controls in drainage
pathways between residential properties and the Site to reduce the
potential for contaminated soil backflow onto clean areas during
flooding situations.
     Placement of ripple dams at several locations on the Esco
drainage system to reduce off-site soil migration.

Second Removal Action

    The second Removal Action was completed in December 2009. This
Removal Action included:
     Removal of soils with concentrations of PCBs greater than
1.0 mg/kg from three residential properties and portions of the road
side drainage ditches along Fannin and Forrester Streets.
     Restoration of the three residential properties and the
road side drainage ditches.
     Transportation and disposal of approximately 3,194 tons of
soils in the Maloy Landfill with concentrations of PCBs less than 50.0
mg/kg (Non-TSCA soils).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In 2009, EPA's remedial program started and completed the off-site
Remedial Investigation (RI) and extent of contamination study by
collecting soil samples for PCB analysis from an additional 52
residential properties, and from Texas Department of Transportation
highway median and road right-of-way drainage ditches that had not been
previously sampled. The RI also included the collection of twelve co-
located water and sediment samples from Horse Creek and the Cowleech
Fork of the Sabine River, and the collection of ground water samples
for PCB analyses.
    In 2010, EPA's remedial program completed the full RI/FS. Surface
and subsurface soil samples were collected from the on-site areas of
the Site to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Sampling
results

showed that soils as deep as 10.0 feet below ground surface were
impacted by PCBs and required remediation. TSCA PCB regulations applied
to the Site because surface and subsurface soils were contaminated by
PCBs. The concentrations of PCBs required that the contaminated soils
be managed as non-TSCA (i.e., concentration less than 50.0 mg/l total
PCBs) or TSCA wastes (i.e., concentration equal to or greater than 50.0
mg/kg total PCBs).
    Ground water samples were collected from the on-site monitoring
wells to determine the nature and extent of contamination in the ground
water underlying the Site. The primary ground water contaminants were
PCBs and the extent of ground water impact was limited. A total of nine
monitoring wells were installed on the Site. Five were installed and
sampled prior to the Site being listed on the NPL. In 2003 the wells
were sampled and the results indicated that the PCB Aroclor-1260 was
present in the ground water in two monitoring wells at concentrations
ranging from 9.26 to 0.379 micrograms per liter ([micro]g/L). In 2009
the wells were resampled and the same two wells reported PCB results of
1.1 and 1.5 [micro]g/L, both above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
of 0.5 [micro]g/L.
    In 2010, four additional wells were installed by EPA's contractor.
Nine ground water samples were collected for PCB analysis in 2010. The
ground water chemical analytical data collected indicated that only
Aroclor-1260 was detected in four wells ranging from 0.04 to 0.46
[micro]g/L, which were below the MCL of 0.5 [micro]g/L.
    Surface water samples were collected from Horse Creek and the
Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River to determine the nature and extent of
surface water contamination. No Aroclors were detected at the
appropriate detection limits and no further action was recommended for
surface water.
    Sediment data were collected from Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork
of the Sabine River to determine the nature and extent of sediment
contamination. Although the maximum sediment concentrations for
Aroclor-1268 and Aroclor-1260 were above the screening benchmark for
sediments, the screening level ecological risk assessment findings
indicated that no further action was required for sediments.

Remedial Action Objectives

    The Remedial Action Objectives to be achieved by the Site Remedy
were:
     Prevent direct dermal contact, incidental ingestion and
inhalation of fugitive dust from PCB-contaminated soils,
     Prevent off-site migration of PCB-contaminated soils to
Horse Creek or the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River,
     Prevent exposure to Site soils that may pose a risk to
ecological receptors, and
     Ensure that current and future receptors were not exposed
to ground water that could possibly be contaminated with PCBs above the
federal MCL of 0.5 [micro]g/L.

Remedial Action Goals

    The excavation, on-site treatment, and off-site disposal of the
soils with a concentration of total PCBs greater than 1.0 mg/kg would
allow the Site to be developed for reuse (i.e., residential and/or
recreational and commercial and/or industrial land use). The
remediation goal for total PCBs for the Site was 1.0 mg/kg.

Selected Remedy

    The selected remedy for the Site, as described in the original 2010
Record of Decision (ROD), was Soil Excavation and Treatment with Off-
site Disposal for Residential and/or Recreational Land Use, and
included the following major components:
     Soil Excavation, Treatment, and Disposal Components:
Approximately 5,200 and 16,250 yd\3\ of TSCA and non-TSCA soils,
respectively, with a concentration of total PCBs greater than 1.0
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) were to be excavated and transported
off-site to a permitted waste disposal facility. Soils were to be
excavated to a maximum depth of 15.0 bgs, consistent with the State's
requirements. Soils with a concentration of total PCBs equal to or
greater than 50.0 mg/kg were to be disposed of at a TSCA-permitted
landfill. Soils with a concentration of total PCBs greater than 1.0 mg/
kg and less than 50.0 mg/kg were to be disposed of at a non-TSCA
landfill. Approximately 1,850 yd\3\ of soils with a concentration of
total PCBs greater than 100.0 mg/kg, constituting principal threat
wastes, were to be treated on-site by solidification or stabilization
techniques prior to disposal. Approximately 4,000 yd\3\ of TSCA soils,
with a concentration of total PCBs less than 100.0 mg/kg, staged in the
existing building from EPA's first removal action, were also to be
transported off-site for disposal. Excavated areas were to be
backfilled with clean off-site soils and the Site was to be graded to
drain and not pond water. The existing building and its foundation were
to be demolished and also transported off-site for disposal.
     Institutional Controls Component--Institutional Controls
(ICs), in the form of deed restrictions, were to be implemented to
prevent exposure of human receptors to contaminated ground water.
     Ground Water Monitoring Component--Ground water monitoring
was to be conducted annually for a minimum period of five years to
evaluate the protectiveness of the Selected Remedy. Ground water
monitoring was to be discontinued if the concentration of total PCBs in
the ground water did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 [micro]g/L for
three consecutive monitoring periods. The additional data collected
during the annual monitoring events was to be used to confirm previous
PCB data and further evaluate trends over time. The additional
monitoring data was to also allow decisions to be made in the future
regarding ground water impacts and evaluation of risks to human health,
the need for additional monitoring, whether to continue maintaining
ICs, and whether any additional actions would be needed to protect
human health and the environment. These decisions were to be made
during the first five-year review report for the Site.
     Operations and Maintenance Component--Operations and
maintenance was to involve the ground water component of the remedy to
ensure that the remedy performed as intended.
     Five-Year Review Component--Because this alternative would
result in hazardous substances (i.e., PCBs) remaining on-site in the
ground water, possibly above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, a statutory review was to be conducted no less
often than every five years after initiation of the RA to ensure that
the remedy was, or will continue to be, protective of human health and
the environment. Five-year reviews were to be discontinued if the
ground water monitoring data indicate that the concentration of total
PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 [micro]g/L for three
consecutive monitoring periods.

Third Removal Action

    On May 4, 2011, EPA signed a Third Action Memorandum, which
documented the continuation of the Time Critical Removal Action and
approval of the Consistency Exemption for the Site. The Consistency
Exemption documented that the continued response actions were
appropriate and consistent with the 2010 ROD selected remedy and
remedial actions.
    The Third Removal Action was completed with issuance of the final
Pollution Report #10 on September 30, 2011. Between May 24 and
September

12, 2011, all PCB-contaminated soils were excavated and transported
off-site to permitted disposal facilities, and the existing building
and foundation was demolished and also transported off-site for
disposal. A total of 28,288 tons of Non-TSCA soils, 24,137 tons of TSCA
PCB-contaminated soils, 343 tons of construction debris, and 1,455 tons
of non-TSCA PCB-contaminated Class II concrete were transported off-
site for disposal. The TSCA soils were disposed of at the CSC Landfill
and the non-TSCA soils, construction debris, and non-TSCA PCB Class II
concrete were disposed of at the Maloy Landfill. Following confirmation
that all PCB-contaminated had been removed, excavated areas were
backfilled with approximately 60,000 yd \3\ of clean off-site soils and
the Site was graded so that it would drain and prevent the formation of
standing water.

No Further Action Is Necessary Record of Decision Amendment and
Explanation of Significant Differences (2011)

    The No Further Action is Necessary Record of Decision Amendment and
Explanation of Significant Differences (ROD Amendment) was signed on
September 28, 2011. The ROD Amendment was prepared to document EPA's
implementation and completion of the post-ROD Third Removal Action for
the PCB-contaminated soils at the Site. The completion of the soil
clean up, which utilized the selected remedy in the original 2010 ROD,
eliminated the need to conduct further soil remedial actions at the
Site. The Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) portion of the
ROD Amendment presented the details of non-significant or minor changes
to the July 2011 Proposed Plan. After the 2011 Proposed Plan was
proposed to the public, but before the ROD Amendment was finalized, EPA
received the 2011 annual ground water monitoring data, which showed
that all concentrations for total PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL
of 0.5 [micro]g/L. As a result, EPA determined that changes to the 2011
Proposed Plan were necessary, and the ESD documented those changes. The
changes would not have a significant impact on the scope, performance
or cost of the remedy.
     The 2011 Proposed Plan stated that ground water monitoring
was to be conducted annually for a minimum of five years to evaluate
the protectiveness of the proposed remedy. Ground water monitoring was
to be discontinued if the concentration of total PCBs in ground water
did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 ug/l for three consecutive
monitoring periods. The ESD added to the Ground Water Monitoring
Component that PCB concentrations had already been below the MCL for
two (2010 and 2011) consecutive monitoring periods and that if the PCB
levels were below the MCL in the third round of ground water sampling
scheduled for 2012, ground water monitoring would be discontinued.
     Institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions
were to be implemented to prevent exposure of human receptors to
contaminated ground water. The ESD stated that these institutional
controls would not be implemented at the Site because the 2010 and 2011
monitoring results for PCBs were below the MCL.
     The ESD eliminated the Operations and Maintenance of the
ground water component of the remedy after ground water monitoring was
to be discontinued.
     Five-Year Reviews would be discontinued if the ground
water data indicated that the concentration of total PCBs did not
exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 [micro]g/L.

Cleanup Levels

Soils
    As stated above, during the Third Removal Action all PCB-
contaminated soils were excavated and transported off-site to permitted
disposal facilities. The Removal Action was completed by September
2011. After the Removal Action was completed, EPA collected post-
construction confirmation soil samples from the bottom of the 52
excavated grids to verify that all PCB-contaminated soils above the
total PCB cleanup level of 1.00 mg/kg had been removed. All soil
samples were reported below the 1.00 mg/kg cleanup level.
Ground Water
    EPA conducted three consecutive annual (2010, 2011, and 2012)
ground water sampling events, and all laboratory total PCB results were
below the MCL level of 0.5 [mu]g/L. Ground water monitoring has been
discontinued and the nine ground water monitoring wells were plugged
and properly abandoned in 2012. Although a requirement for Five-Year
Reviews was included in the decision documents, Five-Year Reviews were
not conducted and are no longer required because the ground water data
indicated that the concentration of total PCBs did not exceed the
federal MCL of 0.5 [mu]g/L and the Site met unlimited use/unrestricted
exposure criteria for the soils and groundwater.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

    The QA/QC program for the Third Removal Action was conducted in
accordance with the Site Removal QA/QC Work Plan prepared by the EPA
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contractor and
the EPA Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) contractor. The
START contractor was responsible for post-excavation confirmation, soil
sample collection, and coordination of sample analyses performed by
either the EPA Houston Laboratory or a commercial laboratory selected
by the START contractor. All sample results were either validated by
the EPA Houston Laboratory or by a START representative.
    The cleanup activities met all QA/QC requirements for the Site. The
EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) conducted daily oversight throughout
the Removal Action activities. During the Removal Action the TCEQ
Project Manager conducted routine inspections and was in regular
contact with the RPM. The TCEQ Project Manager conducted two site
visits to verify that construction was complete.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have satisfied the requirements of
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been
interested and involved with Site activities. EPA has kept the
community and other interested parties updated on Site activities
through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings.
Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation
for the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the
information repositories, and a notice of availability of the Notice of
Intent for Deletion has been published in the Greenville Herald Banner.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in
the ROD and ROD Amendment for all pathways of exposure. All selected
remedial action objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with
agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund responses are needed
to protect human health and the environment at the Site.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Texas through the Texas
Commission on Environment Quality, has determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is
deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective September 10, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the
deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Arturo Blanco,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended in the table by
removing the entry for ``TX, Old Esco Manufacturing, Greenville''.

[FR Doc. 2018-16119 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 49959]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21487]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84297; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2018-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Make Permanent Rule 11.24, Which Sets Forth the Exchange's
Pilot Retail Price Improvement Program

September 27, 2018.
    On July 30, 2018, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to make permanent Rule 11.24, which sets forth the
Exchange's pilot Retail Price Improvement Program. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 17,
2018.\3\ The Commission has received no comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83831 (August 13,
2018), 83 FR 41128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is October 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates November 15, 2018,
as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change (File No. SR-CboeBYX-2018-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21487 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES July 30, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL Ronald Landis, Ph. D. Landis International 3185 Madison Highway PO Box 5126 Valdosta, GA 31603 5126 Dear Dr. Landis:

Background This is the Environmental Protection Agency's ( hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) " Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Diuron" which was approved on July 30, 2002. A Notice of Availability of this tolerance reassessment decision will be published in the Federal Register ( FR) shortly.

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, requires EPA to reassess all the tolerances for registered chemicals in effect on or before the date of the enactment of the FQPA, which was in August of 1996. The Agency is required by FQPA to have 2/ 3 ( approximately 6,416) of all tolerances reassessed prior to August 5, 2002. In order to meet the FQPA tolerance reassessment goal, the tolerance portion of the reregistration will be completed prior to the issuance of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED). A RED for diuron will be completed in 2003, which will address any occupational or ecological risk concerns.

In reassessing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from non occupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. Once a safety finding has been made that aggregate risks are not of concern, the tolerances are considered reassessed.

Diuron Assessment For diuron, acute and chronic ( non cancer) dietary food risks are not of concern. Drinking water derived from ground water is not a concern for any duration or sub population. Drinking water derived from surface water is not of concern except for the estimated chronic risk in the flatwood area of Florida at the maximum application rate. For other areas of Florida where the citrus application rate is 3.2 lbs ai/ A ( up to two applications per year) the estimated environmental concentration ( EECs) are 30 ppb, with 2 a drinking water level of comparison ( DWLOC) of 28 ppb for the most sensitive subpopulation, children 1 6. This represents a slight exceedance and, given the protective assumptions in the dietary assessment, does not pose a risk of concern.

EPA's risk assessment identified some areas of potential concern. These include: chronic surface drinking water risk for the flatwood area of Florida; a slight exceedance for cancer risk from food; potential cancer risk of MCPDMU ( N'( 3 chlorophenyl) N, N dimethyl urea) in water; residential applicator risk from paint or stain use; and aggregate risk.

FQPA Finding Although some risks potentially of concern have been identified, EPA is able to make a determination of reasonable certainty of no harm for diuron, based on further characterization of these risks, the registrant's commitment to mitigation measures designed to reduce exposure to diuron and its metabolites in drinking water, and the development of data to confirm that the mitigation measures are adequate. Each risk of potential concern, related to the tolerance reassessment, with its characterization and the mitigation designed to address the concern, is discussed below. It should be noted that when the Agency evaluates the ecological and worker risks during the development of the RED, additional risk mitigation may be necessary.

Cancer Risk from Food ° The estimated cancer dietary risk associated with the use of diuron indicates a borderline exceedance above 1 x 10 6 and shows a lifetime risk estimate of 1.68 x 10 6 for the general population but, is not of concern.

° The residues used in the calculations are from field trials conducted at the highest application rates and some processing data are still outstanding, which will allow further refinement of the risk assessment and likely lower the risk estimates.

° USDA Pesticide Data Program ( PDP) monitoring data are available for diuron alone, indicating no detectable residues of the parent compound in citrus, milk and other sampled commodities.

° Conservative assumptions were used in risk assessment; therefore, the exposure calculation for cancer dietary risk is a conservative estimate.

Chronic Drinking Water Risk from Surface Water ° Potential chronic drinking water risk concerns from surface water are limited to high use rate areas located in the southern Florida flatwood. In this area, the EECs at the maximum application rate of 6.4 lbs ai/ A ( 9.6 lbs ai/ A per year) are 42 ppb, with a DWLOC of 28ppb. Residue data to support the 9.6 lbs ai/ A per year rate are required. The registrant may provide data to support this use rate or change the labels to reflect the use rate of 6.4 lbs ai/ A per year, as supported by current residue data. 3 ° The registrant is developing additional information to refine the conservative percent crop area ( PCA) factor ( 87%) used in the drinking water assessment. This research will include spatial integration of information on surface water sources for drinking water in the high use rate areas relative to citrus production and soil runoff potential.

° Existing surface water monitoring data for diuron from Florida and California show a relatively high percentage of detections, but concentrations generally one to two orders of magnitude less than modeled values.

° The registrants have agreed to rate reductions, reductions in the number of applications per year, and increases in the intervals between applications as outlined in Table 1.

° Additional targeted drinking water monitoring will be required to fully characterize drinking water risk of diuron and its metabolites.

Potential Cancer Risk of the MCPDMU Metabolite in Water ° In water only, diuron partially degrades to another chemical, MCPDMU ( N'( 3 chlorophenyl) N, N dimethyl urea).

° The cancer estimate for MCPDMU is derived by analogy to a similar compound, monuron, and represents worst case. It is possible that MCPDMU is less toxic than monuron; it is unlikely that it is more toxic. Monuron produces kidney and liver tumors in male rats. The estimated risk for monuron is based on a Q* of 1.52 x 10 2 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1.

° Since there is potential for MCPDMU to occur in water, the Agency considered possible exposures to MCPDMU from ingestion of catfish, as well as from drinking water.

° For chronic risk, the EECs for surface water from PRZM/ EXAMS ( 42 ppb) exceeds the drinking water level of comparison ( DWLOC) of 28 ppb for the most sensitive population subgroup ( children 1  6), in the Flatwood area of Florida, at the highest application rate.

° Residue data to support the 9.6 lbs ai/ A per year rate for citrus are required. The registrant may provide data to support this use rate or change the labels to reflect the use rate of 6.4 lbs ai/ A per year, as supported by current residue data.

° Additional data are being required about the behavior and fate of MCPDMU in drinking water. This information will permit refinement of the drinking water assessment.

° The reductions in application rate and the number of applications per year shown in Table 1 will also reduce exposure to diuron metabolites.

° If the refined data and refined assessment still show drinking water concerns, drinking water monitoring and/ or toxicity data on MCPDMU will be required. 4 5 Residential Cancer Risk from Paint or Stain Use ° Calculated cancer risk to adult applicators using diuron treated paints or stains applied with airless paint sprayer or paint brush is estimated to range from 9.5 x 10 7 to 3.4 x 10 6, depending on the exposure assumptions used, application method employed and the amount applied.

° Post application exposure to children is expected to be minimal as indicated in modeled estimates of inhaled diuron from a screening level inhalation assessment combined diuron's low vapor pressure.

° The assessment assumes two gallons for paints to five gallons for stains applied with a brush per day or fifteen gallons applied per day with an airless sprayer, 2 applications per year, 50 years of use over a 70 year lifetime, and a high end dermal absorption factor of 4% calculated from submitted studies.

° Less than 5% of all paint contains diuron. Therefore, it is unlikely that a homeowner would apply 2 to 5 gallons of paint containing diuron two times per year for 50 years.

Aggregate Risk The aggregate risk assessment for diuron examines the combined risk from exposure through food, drinking water, and residential use.

° There are no adverse effects expected from a single exposure to diuron; therefore, an acute risk assessment was not conducted. Short term aggregate risks from food, residential inhalation, and drinking water are not of concern.

° Estimated aggregate chronic risk ( noncancer) concentrations of diuron and its metabolites in surface water slightly exceed the chronic DWLOC in the Flatwood area of Florida. Because field trial residue levels ( from maximum labeled rates) were used in the assessments, dietary risks are high end estimates and may be refined further.

° An aggregate cancer estimate has not been calculated since conservative assumptions were used in both the dietary and drinking water assessments. Thus, aggregation of these assessments would result in an even more conservative expression of risk.

° Dietary risk estimates can be further refined with processing data and monitoring data that accounts for diuron and its metabolites.

° Additional targeted drinking water monitoring will be required to fully characterize drinking water risk of diuron and its metabolites.

° Because of the low percent of paint containing diuron, exposure to home applicators is not likely to be a significant contributor to aggregate risk. 6 7 Mitigation and Best Management Practices The registrant has agreed to the following measures to reduce exposure to diuron:

° Best Management Practices for managing spray drift. ° No aerial applications except for rights of way, alfalfa, and cotton. ° Eliminate use in areas with muck soils. ° Rate reductions, increased application intervals, and limits on the number of application as noted below in Table 1. ° Revise the product labels consistent with the changes outlined in the Residue Chemistry Chapter and submits the required residue data to support the 9.6 lbs ai/ A per year rate for citrus. 8 Table 1: Revised Application Parameters Crop Current Maximum Application Rate Current Number of Applications/ Retreatment Interval Revised Maximum Application Rate Revised Number of Applications/ Retreatment Interval Right of Way 12 lb ai/ A ( typically 18 lb ai/ A year) Not Restricted ( Typically 2) 12 lb ai/ A per year 2 , with a 90 day retreatment interval Citrus ( other than Flatwood area) 3.2 lb ai/ A No Limit ( 1.6  3.2 lb/ A per application to max of 6.4 lb/ A per year) 3.2 lb ai/ A ( 6.4 lb ai/ A per year) 2 , with a 60 day retreatment interval ( Trees < 4 years)

2 , with a 80 day retreatment interval ( Trees > 4 years)

Citrus ( Flatwood area)* 6.4 lb ai/ A ( 9.6 lb ai/ A per year) No Limit ( 1.6  6.4 lb/ A per application to max of 9.6 lb/ A per year) 6.4 lb ai/ A ( 9.6 lb ai/ A per year) 2 , with a 60 day retreatment interval ( Trees < 4 years)

2 , with a 80 day retreatment interval ( Trees > 4 years)

Apple 3.2 lb ai/ A 1 2 ( 1.6  3.2 lb/ A to max of 3.2 lb/ A per year) 3.2 lb ai/ A per year 1 2 ( 1.6  3.2 lb/ A to max of 3.2 lb ai/ A per year), with a 90 day retreatment interval Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai/ A 1 app./ year 2.4 lb ai/ A per year 1 Cotton 2.2 lb ai/ A Not Restricted Preplant/ Pre emergence: ( 0.8  1.6 lb ai/ A) 3, with total ai per season limited to 0.8 lb ai/ A on coarse soils, 1.5 lb ai/ A on medium soils and 2.2 lb ai/ A on fine soils, with a 21 day retreatment interval Post emergence: ( 0.8  1.2 lb ai/ A, depending upon soil texture)

Grapes 9.6 lb ai/ A 2 4 lb ai/ A ( 8 lb ai/ A per year) 2, with a 90 day retreatment interval * Residue data to support the 9.6 lbs ai/ A per year rate is required, or labels modified to reflect a maximum of 6.4 lbs ai/ A applied per year. 9 Cumulative Assessment FQPA requires that EPA consider " available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." The reason for considering other substances is because of the possibility that low level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect, as would a higher level of exposure to any of the other substances individually. EPA did not perform a cumulative risk assessment as part of this review of diuron, because the Agency has not determined that there are any other chemical substances that have a mechanism of toxicity common with that of diuron. If EPA identifies other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity with diuron, then a cumulative risk assessment will be conducted that includes diuron once the final framework EPA will use for conducting cumulative risk assessments is available. Further, EPA is in the process of developing criteria for characterizing and testing endocrine disrupting chemicals and plans to implement an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Diuron will be reevaluated at that time and additional studies may be required.

Tolerance Reassessment The Agency's tolerance reassessment for the pesticide diuron, has been discussed with interested stakeholders and a closure call will be held prior to issuance of the RED. In addition, both the human health effects and the environmental risk assessments are summarized in the enclosed Overview of the Diuron Risk Assessment document. The risk assessments and other documents pertaining to the diuron tolerance reassessment decision are available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm and are in the public docket for viewing. As mentioned previously, other risks posed by diuron will be addressed through the reregistration process in 2003.

The Agency has reassessed all 81 existing, permanent tolerances for diuron and can make a FQPA safety determination. In addition, two new tolerances are proposed for use on prickly pear ( 0.05 ppm), and spearmint ( 1.5 ppm). The Agency has sufficient residue data for reassessing the tolerances for diuron and is requiring additional confirmatory data for alfalfa forage; globe artichokes; barley hay; citrus ( 9.6 lbs ai/ A per year rate), cotton gin byproducts; field corn aspirated grain fractions, forage and stover; sweet corn, stover; sweet corn, forage; filberts; grass forage, hay seed screenings and straw; lemon; pear; oat forage, hay; olive; field pea vines and hay; sorghum aspirated grain, fractions, stover, and forage; and wheat forage and hay. For commodities that require additional residue data, the current tolerance value is protective of human health and will continue to be used for enforcement purposes until new data are received. If the new data indicate that adjustments to tolerances are warranted, they will be adjusted at that time. Anticipated residues for all commodities were calculated from field trial data and subsequently utilized to estimate the dietary exposure to diuron. Dietary risks from exposure do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. Final tolerances for most crops are being proposed as part of this tolerance reassessment. Additional tolerances may be revised once the confirmatory field trial data have been submitted to and reviewed by the Agency. In addition, processing data for field corn and olives and a metabolism study in fish are required.

Table 2. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Diuron 10 Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) 1 Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) 2 Comment Correct Commodity Definition Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.106( a)

Alfalfa 2 2/( TBD3) [ Alfalfa, forage]

2.0 [ Alfalfa, hay]

Apples 1 0.10 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm. [ Apple]

Artichokes 1 1/( TBD) [ Artichoke, globe]

Asparagus 7 7.0 Treatment of asparagus is restricted to early season, prior to the appearance of asparagus spears.

Bananas 0.1 0.05 This tolerance should be reclassified under 180.106( c), as use of diuron on banana will be restricted to HI. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.05 ppm. [ Banana]

Barley, grain 1 0.20 These tolerances should be reclassified under 180.106( c), as use of diuron on barley is restricted to western OR and WA. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.20 ppm for barley, grain; and to 1.5 ppm for barley, straw. Barley, hay 2 2/( TBD)

Barley, straw ( 2) 6 1.5 Birdsfoot trefoil, forage 2 0.10 These tolerances should be reclassified under 180.106( c), as use of diuron on trefoil is restricted to western OR. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm for birdsfoot trefoil, forage and to 0.15 ppm for birdsfoot trefoil, hay. Birdsfoot trefoil, hay 2 0.15 Blackberries 1 Reassign; 0.10 The established tolerances for blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries, currants, dewberries, gooseberries, huckleberries, loganberries, and raspberries should be revoked concomitant with the establishment of a tolerance for: The available data indicate that these tolerances should be reduced to 0.10 ppm. [ Berry Group]. Blueberries 1 Boysenberries 1 Currants 1 Dewberries 1 Gooseberries 1 Huckleberries 1 Loganberries 1 Raspberries 1 Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) 1 Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) 2 Comment Correct Commodity Definition 11 Cattle, fat 1 16 Cattle, meat 1 16 Cattle, meat byproducts 1 16 Citrus fruits 1 1/( TBD3, 6) [ Fruit, citrus, group]

Citrus pulp, dried 4 4/( TBD) [ Citrus, dried pulp]

Clover, forage 2 0.10 These tolerances should be reclassified under 180.106( c), as use of diuron on clover is restricted to western OR. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm for clover, forage and to 1 ppm for clover, hay. Clover, hay 2 1 Corn in grain or ear form ( including sweet corn, field corn, popcorn) 1 0.10 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, a separate tolerance should be established for [ Corn, field, grain]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm.

1 0.10 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, a separate tolerance should be established for [ Corn, pop, grain]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm.

1 0.10 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, a separate tolerance should be established for [ Corn, sweet, grain]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm.

1 0.10 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, a separate tolerance should be established for [ Corn, field, ear]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm.

1 0.10 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, a separate tolerance should be established for [ Corn, pop ear]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm. Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) 1 Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) 2 Comment Correct Commodity Definition 12 1 0.10 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, a separate tolerance should be established for [ Corn, sweet ear]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm.

Corn, sweet, fodder 2 Revoke There are no registered uses of diuron on sweet corn. Corn, sweet, forage 2 Corn, field fodder 2 2/( TBD) This tolerance was inadvertently omitted from the 1/ 14/ 98 Final Rule technical amendment consolidating 40 CFR parts 185 186 to 40 CFR part 180. This action will reinstate this tolerance to 40 CFR part 180.106. [ Corn, field, stover]

Corn, pop, fodder 2 2/( TBD) This tolerance was inadvertently omitted from the 1/ 14/ 98 Final Rule technical amendment consolidating 40 CFR parts 185 186 to 40 CFR part 180. This action will reinstate this tolerance to 40 CFR part 180.106. [ Corn, pop, stover]

Corn, field forage 2 2/( TBD) This tolerance was inadvertently omitted from the 1/ 14/ 98 Final Rule technical amendment consolidating 40 CFR parts 185 186 to 40 CFR part 180. This action will reinstate this tolerance to 40 CFR part 180.106. [ Corn, field, forage]

Corn, pop, forage 2 2/( TBD) This tolerance was inadvertently omitted from the 1/ 14/ 98 Final Rule technical amendment consolidating 40 CFR parts 185 186 to 40 CFR part 180. This action will reinstate this tolerance to 40 CFR part 180.106. [ Corn, pop, forage]

Cottonseed 1 0.20 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.20 ppm. [ Cotton, undelinted seed]

Goats, fat 1 16 [ Goat, fat]

Goats, meat 1 16 [ Goat, meat]

Goats, meat byproducts 1 16 [ Goat, meat byproducts]

Grapes 1 0.05 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.05 ppm. [ Grape] Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) 1 Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) 2 Comment Correct Commodity Definition 13 Grass crops ( other than Bermuda grass) 2 2/( TBD) [ Grass, forage, except Bermuda grass]

Grass, hay ( other than Bermuda grass hay) 2 2/( TBD) [ Grass, hay, except Bermuda grass]

Hogs, fat 1 16 [ Hog, fat]

Hogs, meat 1 16 [ Hog, meat]

Hogs, meat byproducts 1 16 [ Hog, meat byproducts]

Horses, fat 1 16 [ Horse, fat]

Horses, meat 1 16 [ Horse, meat]

Horses, meat byproducts 1 16 [ Horse, meat byproducts]

Nuts 0.1 0.1/( TBD) Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, separate a separate tolerance should be established for [ Filbert ].

0.05 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, separate a separate tolerance should be established for [ Nut, macadamia]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.05 ppm.

0.05 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, separate a separate tolerance should be established for [ Pecan]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.05 ppm.

0.05 Concomitant with the reassignment of this tolerance, separate a separate tolerance should be established for [ Walnut]. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.05 ppm.

Oats, forage 2 2/( TBD) These tolerances should be reclassified under 180.106( c), as use of diuron on oats is restricted to ID, OR, and WA. The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm for oats, grain; and to 1.5 ppm for oats, straw. Oats, grain 1 0.10 Oats, hay 2 2/( TBD)

Oats, straw 2 1.5 Olives 1 1/( TBD) [ Olive]

Papayas 0.5 0.50 [ Papayas] Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) 1 Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) 2 Comment Correct Commodity Definition 14 Peaches 0.1 0.10 [ Peach]

Pears 1 1/( TBD) [ Pear]

Peas 1 0.10 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm. [ Pea, field, seed]

Peas, forage 2 2/( TBD) [ Pea, field, vines]

Peas, hay 2 2/( TBD) [ Pea, field, hay]

Peppermint, hay 2 1.5 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 1.5 ppm. [ Peppermint, tops]

Pineapple 1 0.10 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.10 ppm.

Potatoes 1 Revoke There are no registered uses of diuron on potatoes.

Rye, forage 2 Revoke There are no registered uses of diuron on rye. Rye, grain 1 Rye, hay 2 Rye, straw 2 Sheep, fat 1 16 Sheep, meat 1 16 Sheep, meat byproducts 1 16 Sorghum, fodder 2 2/( TBD) [ Sorghum, grain, stover]

Sorghum, forage 2 2/( TBD) [ Sorghum, grain, forage]

Sorghum, grain 1 0.50 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.50 ppm. [ Sorghum, grain, grain]

Sugarcane 1 0.20 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.20 ppm.

Vetch, forage 2 0.10 These tolerances should be reclassified under 180.106( c), as use of diuron on vetch is restricted to ID, OR, and WA. The available data indicate that these tolerances should be reduced to 0.10 ppm for vetch, forage and to 1.5 ppm for vetch, hay. Vetch, hay 2 1.5 Vetch, seed 1 Revoke No longer considered a significant livestock feed item. Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) 1 Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) 2 Comment Correct Commodity Definition 15 Wheat, forage 2 2/( TBD)

Wheat, grain 1 0.50 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.50 ppm.

Wheat, hay 2 2/( TBD)

Wheat, straw 2 1.5 The available data indicate that the tolerance should be reduced to 1.5 ppm.

Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.106( b)

Catfish fillets 2.04 2.0 Expiration date of 06/ 30/ 03 [ Catfish]

Tolerances To Be Proposed Under 40 CFR § 180.106( a)

Aspirated grain fractions N/ A 5.0 Barley, bran N/ A 0.7 Citrus, oil N/ A TBD Cotton, gin byproducts N/ A TBD Eggs N/ A TBD Grass, seed screenings N/ A TBD Grass, straw N/ A TBD Milk N/ A TBD Pineapple, process residue N/ A 0.40 Poultry, meat byproducts N/ A TBD Prickly pear N/ A 0.05 Spearmint N/ A 1.5 Sugarcane, molasses N/ A 0.70 Wheat, bran N/ A 0.70 1. Expressed as diuron per se, unless otherwise stated.

2. To be expressed as the combined residues of diuron and its metabolites convertible to 3,4 DCA, expressed as diuron. The residues of 3,4 DCA are low but diuron residues are converted to 3,4 DCA for the tolerance expression based on the assumption that the metabolites would not be any more toxic than diuron and the consideration that the analytical methods used to collect the field trial data are not capable of measuring each metabolite individually. The reassessed tolerances are contingent upon the recommended label revisions outlined in Table B of the Residue Chemistry Chapter 16 For The Diuron Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document, dated 7/ 29/ 2001.

3. TBD = To be determined. These commodities were included in the dietary risk assessment using the Current Tolerance level. Additional confirmatory field trial residue data are required; therefore, the final tolerance may be revised.

4. Expressed as combined residues of diuron and its metabolites convertible to 3,4 DCA.

5. Feeding study data have been submitted to reassess the established tolerances for the fat, meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep. Residue data are not available for several potential feed items. If the maximum dietary burden does not increase when recalculated from all potential feed items after acceptable field trial data are submitted then the established tolerances for residues in fat, meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep can be lowered.

6. Residue data to support the 9.6 lbs ai/ A per year rate on citrus are required. The registrant may provide data to support this use rate or change the labels to reflect the use rate of 6.4 lbs ai/ A per year, as supported by current residue data. 17 No maximum residue limits ( MRLs) for diuron have been established by Codex for any agricultural commodity.

If you have questions on this document, please contact the Chemical Review Manager, Diane Isbell, at ( 703) 308 8154.

Sincerely,

Lois A. Rossi, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Enclosure:

Overview of the Diuron Risk Assessment Diuron Summary


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11385-11386]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03401]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80046; File No. SR-BX-2017-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the
Implementation Date of Its Functionality Relating to Post-Only Orders
and Orders With Midpoint Pegging, and Its Trade-Now Functionality

February 15, 2017.
    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 February 3, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation date of its
functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint
Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality.
    There is no rule text for this proposed rule change.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    BX is filing this proposal to extend the implementation date of its
functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint
Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality. The functionality relating to
Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging was approved by the
SEC on November 10, 2016,\3\ and the Trade-Now functionality was
submitted on an immediately effective basis on November 8, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79290 (November 10,
2016), 81 FR 81184 (November 17, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-046) (``Post-Only
Approval Order'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79281 (November 10,
2016), 81 FR 81203 (November 17, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the new Post-Only functionality, the behavior of Post-Only
orders would be altered when the adjusted price of such orders lock or
cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book. Specifically, if
the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross a non-
displayed price on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only order would be
posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order. However, the
Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more, or
(ii) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement
associated with executing against an Order on the Exchange Book (as
measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or
exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any
rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Exchange Book
and subsequently provided liquidity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Post-Only Approval Order, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, if the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a
Protected Quotation but would lock or cross a Non-Displayed Order on
the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be posted, ranked, and
displayed at its limit price. The Post-Only Order would execute if (i)
it is priced at $1.00 or more, or (ii) it is priced below $1.00 and the
value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order
on the Exchange Book equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such
execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the
Order posted to the Exchange Book and subsequently provided
liquidity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX also proposed to change its Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, so
that, if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed, any existing
Order with Midpoint Pegging would be rejected and any new Order with
Midpoint Pegging would be cancelled.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under BX's Trade-Now functionality, participants could enter an
instruction to have a locked resting buy (sell) order execute against
the locking sell (buy) order. BX proposed to offer the functionality on
its OUCH, RASH, FLITE and FIX protocols. Depending on the protocol used
by the participant to access the BX system, the participant could
either specify that the order execute against locking interest
automatically, or the participant would be required to send a Trade Now
instruction to the Exchange once the order has become locked. BX
proposed to offer the Trade Now instruction for all orders that may be
sent to the BX book and that are not subject to other BX rules
regarding the display and execution of those orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79281 (November 10,
2016), 81 FR 81203 (November 17, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX initially proposed to implement the new Post-Only, Midpoint
Pegging and Trade-Now functionality on

November 21, 2016.\9\ However, following testing, BX has decided to
delay the implementation of these new functionalities to provide
additional time for systems testing. The new functionality shall be
implemented no later than March 31, 2017. BX will announce the new
implementation date by an Equity Trader Alert, which shall be issued
prior to the implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Equity Trader Alert #2016-291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The purpose of this proposal is to inform the SEC and market
participants of the new implementation date for the Post-Only, Midpoint
Pegging, and Trade Now functionalities. The functionalities themselves
were previously proposed in rule filings that were submitted to the
SEC, and this proposal does not change the substance of those
functionalities.\12\ BX is delaying the implementation date of these
functionalities to provide for further systems testing prior to
implementing these functionalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ BX notes that the Trade-Now functionality was submitted to
the SEC as an immediately effective filing, while the Post-Only and
Midpoint Pegging functionalities were the subject of an SEC approval
order. See supra notes 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the purpose of
this proposal is to extend the implementation date for Post-Only,
Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionalities so that BX may perform
additional systems testing prior to implementing these functionalities.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2017-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-008. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 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-BX-2017-008 and should be
submitted on or before March 15, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03401 Filed 2-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 67 (Friday, April 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18525-18526]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07323]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2570-033]

AEP Generation Resources, Inc.; Eagle Creek Racine Hydro, LLC;
Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On March 5, 2021, AEP Generation Resources, Inc. (transferor) and
Eagle Creek Racine Hydro, LLC (transferee) filed jointly an application
for the transfer of license of the Racine Hydroelectric Project No.
2570. The project is located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
(Corps) Racine Locks and Dam on the Ohio River near the Town of Racine
in Meigs County, Ohio. The project occupies 23 acres of federal land
administered by the Corps.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Racine Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the transferee.
    Applicants Contact: For transferor, AEP Generation Resources, Inc.:
Ms. Kimberly Ognisty, Winston & Strawn LLP, 1901 L Street NW,
Washington, DC 20036, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Mr. John C. Crespo, American Electric Power
Corporation, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: (614) 716-
3727, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For transferee, Eagle Creek Racine Hydro, LLC: Mr. Joshua E.
Adrian, Duncan Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C., 1667 K Street NW,
Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Anumzziatta Purchiaroni,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end

of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via 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. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-2570-033. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not
considered part of the Commission record.

    Dated: April 5, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07323 Filed 4-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 19470]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #3

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1586-007; ER10-1630-007.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC, Wolf Hills Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Avenue MBR
Sellers, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5430.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1446-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, SA No.
4541; Queue No. W1-124/AA2-049 (amend) to be effective 9/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1447-000.
    Applicants: Brookfield Energy Marketing US LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: New eTariff Baseline and Revised
MBR Tariff to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1448-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Avangrid Const Agmt for
Klamath Metering (Rev 1) to be effective 5/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1449-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy
Services, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-31_Entergy NOL
Filing to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1450-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ELL-Cleco 2nd Amended
Implementation Agreement to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1451-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Enhancement of PJM's Credit
Rules to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1452-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020 TACBAA Update to be
effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1453-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-31_Revisions to
Schedule 17 Financial Schedules to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1454-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Apr 2020 Membership Filing
to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1455-000.
    Applicants: Cordova Energy Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Compensation
Tariff Filing to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1456-000.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Service Agreement
and Revised Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement to be effective 6/
1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1457-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ACEC Amendment to Wholesale
Power Agreement to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200331-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/20.

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

    Dated: March 31, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07194 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P