[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48511-48517]
[DOCID:fr23se09-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588; FRL-8961-4]
RIN 2050-AD75

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add the Newtown Creek site in
Brooklyn/Queens, New York, to the General Superfund Section of the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding this proposed listing must be submitted
(postmarked) on or before November 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket number EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0588, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLA
Docket Office (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding
Federal holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0588. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system; that means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional docket addresses and further
details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public
Comment,'' of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mail Code 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What Is the NCP?
    C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
    E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
    G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
    H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are
Cleaned Up?
    I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?
    B. How Do I Access the Documents?
    C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the
Headquarters Docket?
    D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Region
2 Docket?
    E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
    F. What Happens to My Comments?

    G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?
    H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period is
Over?
    I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?
    J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Addition to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866
Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What Is Executive Order 13132
    2. Is Executive Order 13132 Applicable to This Proposed Rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
    2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Proposed Rule?

I. Background

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What Is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list
of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires
that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance,
however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner
of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean
that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the ``General
Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by
other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities Section''). With
respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive
Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each
Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at
facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although
EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (``HRS'')
score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The
HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a
threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR
51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a
matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the
HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B),
each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed
on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires
that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility
designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health,
welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This
mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score,
if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends

dissociation of individuals from the release.
     EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
     EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to
the release.
    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA
may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?

    EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with
States on proposed deletions and shall consider 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 Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites from the NPL as They Are Cleaned
Up?

    In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/
ccl.htm.

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places
on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that
allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and
economic vitality while ensuring protectiveness for current and future
land users. For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/recycle/tools/index.html.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring
of the site in this rule are contained in public dockets located both
at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Region 2 office and by
electronic access at http://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in
the ADDRESSES section above).

B. How Do I Access the Documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the Region 2 dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal
holidays. Please contact the Region 2 docket for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.; EPA West,
Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a
visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the Regional 2 docket is as follows:
Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343.
    You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Region 2
dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request
under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure
for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to
the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may only
be viewed in-person; however, EPA dockets are not equipped to either
copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out
electronically.
    You may use the docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences
between the Headquarters docket and the Regional dockets and those
differences are outlined below.

C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters
Docket?

    The Headquarters docket for this rule contains the following for
the site proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; Documentation Record
describing the information used to compute the score; and a list of
documents referenced in the Documentation Record.

D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Region 2
Docket?

    The Region 2 docket for this rule contains all of the information
in the Headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents
containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in
calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the site. These reference
documents are available only in the Region 2 docket.

E. How Do I Submit My Comments?

    Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that
the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are
two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by
express mail or by postal mail.

F. What Happens to My Comments?

    EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if,
and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (DC Cir. 1988)). EPA will
not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or
other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they
indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over?

    Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only
guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close
of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not
delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration
of late comments.

I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Region 2
docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public
docket at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Once in the public dockets system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment

will not generally be included in the docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Addition to the NPL

    In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add the Newtown Creek
site in Brooklyn/Queens, New York, to the General Superfund section of
the NPL. This site is being proposed based on an HRS score of 28.50 or
above.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does
not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means 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. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This proposed rule listing a site on the NPL, if promulgated, would
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small-government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Proposal
does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor
does proposal require any action by a private party or determine
liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses
result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not
directly from the act of proposing a site to be placed on the NPL.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and
205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What Is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
2. Is Executive Order 13132 Applicable to This Proposed Rule?
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any
requirements applicable to States or other levels of government. Thus,
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed
rule.
    EPA believes, however, that this proposed rule may be of
significant interest to State governments. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA therefore consulted
with State officials and/or representatives of State governments early
in the process of developing the rule to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. The site included in this
proposed rule was referred to EPA by the State for listing. EPA
received a letter of support from the State official who was delegated
the authority by the Governor to speak on his behalf regarding NPL
listing decisions.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Proposing a site
to the NPL does not impose any costs on a Tribe or require a Tribe to
take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage

Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts because proposing
a site to the NPL does not require an entity to conduct any action that
would require energy use, let alone that which would significantly
affect energy supply, distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note),

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to
This Proposed Rule?
    No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Rule?
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon
State, Tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor
decrease environmental protection.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: September 17, 2009.
Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. E9-22935 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 30965]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1850-000]

Delta's Edge Lessee, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Delta's Edge Lessee, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file 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 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 30, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically 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.
    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://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. 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 the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 9, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10324 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1278-1279]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00267]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form PF, SEC File No. 270-636, OMB Control No. 3235-0679

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the collection of information summarized below. The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 204(b)-1 (17 CFR 275.204(b)-1) under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) implements sections 404 and 406
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the
``Dodd-Frank Act'') by requiring private fund advisers that have at
least $150 million in private fund assets under management to report
certain information regarding the private funds they advise on Form PF.
These advisers are the respondents to the collection of information.
    Form PF is designed to facilitate the Financial Stability Oversight
Council's (``FSOC'') monitoring of systemic risk in the private fund
industry and to assist FSOC in determining whether and how to deploy
its regulatory tools with respect to nonbank financial companies. The
Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission may also use
information collected on Form PF in their regulatory programs,
including examinations, investigations and investor protection efforts
relating to private fund advisers.
    Form PF divides respondents into two broad groups, Large Private
Fund Advisers and smaller private fund advisers. ``Large Private Fund
Advisers'' are advisers with at least $1.5 billion in assets under
management attributable to hedge funds (``large hedge fund advisers''),
advisers that manage ``liquidity funds'' and have at least $1 billion
in combined assets under management attributable to liquidity funds and
registered money market funds (``large liquidity fund advisers''), and
advisers with at least $2 billion in assets under management
attributable to private equity funds (``large private equity
advisers''). All other respondents are considered smaller private fund
advisers.
    The Commission estimates that most filers of Form PF have already
made their first filing, and so the burden hours applicable to those
filers will reflect only ongoing burdens, and not start-up burdens.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates the total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden of the collection of information for each
respondent is as follows:
    (a) For smaller private fund advisers making their first Form PF
filing, an estimated amortized average annual burden of 23 hours for
each of the first three years;
    (b) For smaller private fund advisers that already make Form PF
filings, an estimated amortized average annual burden of 15 hours for
each of the next three years;
    (c) For large hedge fund advisers making their first Form PF
filing, an estimated amortized average annual burden of 610 hours for
each of the first three years;
    (d) For large hedge fund advisers that already make Form PF
filings, an estimated amortized average annual burden of 560 hours for
each of the next three years;
    (e) For large liquidity fund advisers making their first Form PF
filing, an estimated amortized average annual burden of 588 hours for
each of the first three years;
    (f) For large liquidity fund advisers that already make Form PF
filings, an estimated amortized average annual burden of 280 hours for
each of the next three years;
    (g) For large private equity advisers making their first Form PF
filing, an estimated amortized average annual burden of 67 hours for
each of the first three years; and
    (h) For large private equity advisers that already make Form PF
filings, an estimated amortized average annual burden of 50 hours for
each of the next three years.
    With respect to annual internal costs, the Commission estimates the
collection of information will result in 92 burden hours per year on
average for each respondent. With respect to external cost burdens, the
Commission estimates a range from $0 to $50,000 per adviser.
    Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of
information requirements of Form PF is mandatory for advisers that
satisfy the criteria described in Instruction 1 to the Form. Responses
to the collection of information will be kept confidential to the
extent permitted by law. The Commission does not intend to make

public information reported on Form PF that is identifiable to any
particular adviser or private fund, although the Commission may use
Form PF information in an enforcement action. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 5, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00267 Filed 1-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10044-10045]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03276]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC21-50-000.
    Applicants: Powervine Energy, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Powervine 50Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1123-007.
    Applicants: Union Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Union Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1633-004.
    Applicants: U.S. Energy Partners, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of U.S. Energy
Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1342-002.
    Applicants: NMRD Data Center III, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: NMRD DC III MBR Tariff to be
effective 11/13/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1343-002.
    Applicants: NMRD Data Center II, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: NMRD DC II MBR Tariff to be
effective 11/13/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2000-002.
    Applicants: Clyde Onsite Generation, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Clyde Onsite Generation MBR Tariff
to be effective 7/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2761-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1628R18 Western Farmers Electric
Cooperative NITSA NOA to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-857-000; ER21-856-000.
    Applicants: Trent River Solar, LLC, PGR Lessee P, LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to January 11, 2021 Trent River
Solar, LLC, et al. tariff filings.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1066-000.
    Applicants: Rock Aetna Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Request for Prospective Tariff Waiver of Rock Aetna
Power Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/4/21.
    Accession Number: 20210204-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1090-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA,
SA No. 4911; Queue No. AC2-071 to be effective 3/22/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1091-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA No. 4401,
Queue No. AA1-095 to be effective 1/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1092-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Rayos Del Sol Solar
4th A&R Interconnection Agreement to be effective 1/27/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1093-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2827R6 KPP and Evergy Kansas
Central Meter Agent Agreement to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1094-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA,
SA No. 4916; Queue No. AC2-070 to be effective 3/22/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1095-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Rayos Del Sol Solar
(Vancourt) 1st A&R Interconnection Agreement to be effective 1/27/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1096-000.
    Applicants: ITC Great Plains, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: ITC Great Plains Facilities
Service Agreement to be effective 4/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1097-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Dynamic Scheduling and
Intermittent Resource Regulation Agreement of Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1098-000.
    Applicants: Contrail Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 4/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1099-000.
    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Public Service
Electric and Gas Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: JCPL submits ECSA SA No.
5923 to be effective 4/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1100-000.
    Applicants: Westlands Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended Rate Schedule FERC
No. 1,

Transmission Service Agreement to be effective 4/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1101-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc, Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205 joint amended & restated
LGIA: NYISO, ConEd, NRG Berrians, SA2535 to be effective 1/28/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1102-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised ISA, SA No. 2150 and
Original ICSA, SA No. 5934; Queue No. AD1-097 to be effective 1/12/
2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1103-000.
    Applicants: Indianapolis Power & Light Company.
    Description: Request for Prospective, Limited Waivers of
Indianapolis Power & Light Company.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1104-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ICSA, Service
Agreement No. 5931; Queue Nos. AC2-186, AC2-187, AC2-188 to be
effective 1/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1105-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA, Service
Agreement No. 4511; Queue No. AF2-180 to be effective 1/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1106-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA, Service
Agreement No. 4512; Queue No. AF2-179 to be effective 1/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210211-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM21-2-000.
    Applicants: Cooperative Energy.
    Description: Application of Cooperative Energy to Terminate Its
Mandatory Purchase Obligation under the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978.
    Filed Date: 2/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210210-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/21.

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

    Dated: February 11, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03276 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 25)] [Notices]                [Page 6973-6982] [DOCID:fr06fe08-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[FDA No. 225-07-8007]

  Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and Drug  Administration and the National Institutes of Health

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of  a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the National  Institutes of Health (NIH). This MOU establishes the terms of  collaboration between the two Federal agencies to develop a unified  Federal approach to adverse event (AE) reporting. Specifically, FDA and  NIH will collaborate in development of a project that will result in a  web-based method for consumers, health professionals, investigators,  sponsors, and other parties to electronically submit AE reports. The  project includes the development of at least two products: (1) A  Rational Questionnaire, an interactive help system that will assist  reporters of information in determining what specific data need to be  submitted and to whom, and (2) a prototype to test the feasibility of a  central, Federal web-based portal to provide direct, seamless, online  submission of adverse event reports to appropriate agencies.

DATES: The agreement became effective September 27, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Allis, OC/Office of Critical  Path Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (HF-18),  Rockville, MD 20785,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which  states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others  shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is publishing  notice of this MOU.

    Dated: January 28, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE08.115

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE08.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE08.117

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE08.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE08.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE08.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE08.121

[FR Doc. 08-496 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-C


Table 1 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  On Highway Engine Certification Application Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Mgr/ eng/ tech@

75/ hr Clerical@

38/ hr Respon.

hr/ yr Labor Cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost( 1) Applications/

respondent( 2) Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total Cost/ yr Review of regs and guidance document 6 0 6 450 0 0 7 22 950 71,280 Developing eng families and evap groups 21 0 21 1,575 0 0 1 22 462 34,650 Developing deterioration factors 42 0 42 3,150 0 0 3 22 2,402 180,180 Gathering emission data on test engines 110 0 110 8,250 0 0 4 16 6,336 475,200 Laboratory maintenance( 1) 0 0 0 0 0 60,000 1 15 0 900,000 Test Cost ( annualized)( 1) 0 0 0 0 0 6,666 2 6 0 71,993 Preparing and submitting certification application and fee filing form( 3) 58 0 58 4,350 0 4 3 22 3,318 249,049 Preparing and submitting " carry over"

applications 6 0 6 450 0 2 5 12 353 26,578 Fee ( 4) 0 0 0 0 0 12,584 5 22 0 1,467,294 Preparing and submitting evaporative certification application( 5) 20 0 20 1,500 0 4 1 7 126 9,475 Preparing and submitting evap " carry over" applications 1 0 1 75 0 2 5 7 36 2,749 Fee( 4) 0 0 0 0 0 2,145 5 7 0 76,577 Preparing and supporting running changes 30 0 30 2,250 0 2 3 2 150 11,260 Store, file and maintain records 0 25 25 950 0 2 7 22 3,960 150,797 Preparing and submitting annual report 0 8 8 304 0 1 1 22 176 6,710 Total per respondent varies 33 327 $ 23,304 0 varies varies 22 18,269 $ 3,733,791 Total for the industry N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 1,217,136 0 $ 2,516,656 varies 22 18,269 $ 3,733,791 ( 1) See section 6( b) ii for details. ( 4) See section 6( b)( ii) for details.

( 2) See section 6( d) for details. ( 5) Evaporative families only, except carry overs.

( 3) All On highway HD engine families except evaporative families and carry overs


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69729-69730]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28940]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0700; FRL-8892-3]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were
granted during the period July 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011, to
control unforeseen pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See each emergency exemption or denial
for the name of a contact person. The following information applies to
all contact persons: Team Leader, Emergency Response Team, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption
or denial of interest.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0700. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

II. Background

    EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following
State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the
following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has
also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.
    Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide
when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called
emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are
of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are emergency
exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are
rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide
authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number
of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also
gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if
any.

III. Emergency Exemptions and Denials

A. U.S. States and Territories

California
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation
    Crisis: On August 9, 2011, for the post harvest use of sulfur
dioxide on figs to control gray mold caused by Botrytis cinerea (B.
cinerea); this program will end on December 31, 2011. Contact: Libby
Pemberton.
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on
asparagus to control aphids; July 12, 2011 to October 31, 2011.
Contact: Libby Pemberton.
    EPA authorized the use of abamectin on bean, lima, dry to control
spider mites; July 6. 2011 to March 31, 2012. Contact: Keri Grinstead.
Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; August 17, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
Kentucky
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; July 12, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on rice
to control

rice stink bug (Oebalus pugnax); July 12, 2011, to October 30, 2011.
Contact: Libby Pemberton.
Nebraska
Department of Agriculture
    Denial: On September 12, 2011, EPA denied the use of a product
containing the two active ingredients, rimsulfuron and thifensulfuron
methyl, to control weeds in chicory cultivation. Contact: Andrea
Conrath.
New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of quinclorac on
cranberry to control dodder; July 12, 2011 to December 15, 2011.
Contact: Marcel Howard.
Ohio
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; August 15, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
Oregon
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of quinclorac on
cranberry to control yellow loosestrife; August 8, 2011 to August 31,
2011. Contact: Marcel Howard.
Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; July 15, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
Washington
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on
asparagus to control aphids; July 12, 2011 to September 30, 2011.
Contact: Libby Pemberton.
    EPA authorized the use of quinclorac on cranberry to control yellow
loosestrife; August 8, 2011 to August 31, 2011. Contact: Marcel Howard.
Wyoming
Department of Agriculture
    Denial: On September 12, 2011, EPA denied the use of a product
containing the two active ingredients, rimsulfuron and thifensulfuron
methyl, to control weeds in chicory cultivation. Contact: Andrea
Conrath.

B. Federal Departments and Agencies

Department of Defense
U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
    Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of paraformaldehyde to
decontaminate biological containment areas, biological safety cabinets
and equipment, and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters in
the ventilation system to prevent the release of infectious
microorganisms from containment areas; September 27, 2011 to September
27, 2014. Contact: Princess Campbell.
Department of Homeland Security
Batelle National Biodefense Institute (BNBI)
    Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of paraformaldehyde to
decontaminate microbiological containment areas, biological safety
cabinets and equipment, and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters in the ventilation system to prevent the release of infectious
microorganisms from containment areas; September 27, 2011 to September
27, 2014. Contact: Princess Campbell.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Antimicrobials, Health and safety,
Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: October 27, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-28940 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


We fully understand public safety, and we hope to reach an agreement.  The train engineers should NOT have to blast the horn when there is NO one present to warn.  For after hours; 9pm - 7AM there is very little to NOBODY at the railway crossing.  There is NO REASON to blast the horn when there is no one to warn!

We are asking for a Quite Zone, in the village of Lansing, Illinois.  The train engineer should not blast the 110 decibel horn unless there is reason to warn a pedestrian or motorist.  Otherwise PLEASE SILENCE THE HORN.

Thank you


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51154-51155]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0041]

FM Approvals LLC: Grant of Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for FM Approvals LLC, as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
August 19, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone
(202) 693-2110 or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of FM Approvals LLC (FM) as a NRTL. FM's expansion covers
the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial
recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including FM, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    FM submitted an application dated November 3, 2021 (OSHA-2007-0041-
0018), to expand their recognition to include one additional test
standard. The standard requested in the expansion application is a
replacement standard for ISA 12.12.01, which is currently included in
FM's NRTL Scope of Recognition. OSHA staff performed detailed analysis
of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information.
OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this
application.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing FM's expansion
application in the Federal Register on June 17, 2022 (87 FR 36542). The
agency requested comments by July 5, 2022, but it received no comments
in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final
grant of expansion of FM's NRTL recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the FM's application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the
Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0041 contains all materials
in the record concerning FM's recognition. Please note: Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to the public at this
time but can be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined FM's expansion application, its capability to
meet the requirements of the test standard, and other pertinent
information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that FM
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed in this
notice. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant
FM's expanded scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of FM's
recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration
of conformance to the test standard listed below in Table 1.

  Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in FM's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 121201.........................  Nonincendive Electrical Equipment
                                     for Use in Class I and Class II,
                                     Division 2 and Class III, Divisions
                                     1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified)
                                     Locations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

A. Conditions

    Recognition is contingent on continued compliance with 29 CFR
1910.7, including, but not limited to, abiding by the following
conditions of the recognition:
    1. FM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. FM must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. FM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on FM's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of FM as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and
conditions specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 5, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-17879 Filed 8-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


From: Wilson, Erika
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:03 PM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Bremer, Kristen; Hackel, Angela; Risley, David
Subject: Web comment on the Clean Power Plan

Hello Miss Nolla

Thank you for your inquiry.  In response to the question you submitted to the Clean Power Plan web site regarding off shore wind energy:

For the purposes of determining the best system for emission reductions (BSER), offshore wind was not specifically considered in the proposed RE method and was not included in the alternative RE approach because there are currently no operational offshore wind facilities in the United States from which to calculate a benchmark development rate. Please see section 1.3 RE Target Generation Methodology by Technology Type (page 3) in the Alternative RE Approach TSD, available here: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule-alternative-renewable-energy-approach, for more information.

Thank you for your interest in the Clean Power Plan.

Erika Wilson
U.S. EPA - Office of Air and Radiation
202.343.9113

Submitted on 09/02/2014 11:38AM
Submitted values are:

Name: Miss Kamil E. Armaiz Nolla
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments: I am a graduate student at James Madison University. I would like to receive more information regarding if any offshore wind energy was consider in the calculations for Renewable Energy offsets in the EPA Rule.
Any additional information regarding offshore wind energy and the Rule will be greatly appreciated.
Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36787-36788]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Rechanneling the Current Cardiac Risk Paradigm: Arrhythmia Risk
Assessment During Drug Development Without the Thorough QT Study;
Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Cardiac Safety
Research Consortium, and the International Life Sciences Institute's
Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) will cosponsor a
public workshop entitled ``Rechanneling the Current Cardiac Risk
Paradigm: Arrhythmia Risk Assessment During Drug Development Without
the Thorough QT Study.'' The workshop will introduce for discussion a
new

nonclinical paradigm for assessing Torsade de Pointes (TdP) risk and
explore the parameters for an appropriate, strong, nonclinical
proarrthymia screening method as an alternative to clinical Thorough QT
studies. The workshop, which will seek input from all attendees, is
intended to provide a forum for stakeholders, including experts and
opinion leaders from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies in the
United States, the European Union, Canada, and Asian countries, to
discuss what a new framework might look like, the benefits and
limitations of the current guidelines, and the importance of a uniform
assay schema.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on July 23, 2013,
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the
Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993.
    Contact Person: Devi Kozeli, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
22, rm. 4183, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This workshop will introduce for discussion a new nonclinical
paradigm for assessing TdP risk and explore the parameters for an
appropriate, strong, nonclinical proarrthymia screening method as an
alternative to clinical Thorough QT studies. The workshop, which will
seek input from all attendees, is intended to provide a forum for
stakeholders, including experts and opinion leaders from academia,
industry, and regulatory agencies in the United States, the European
Union, Canada, and Asian countries, to discuss what a new framework
might look like, the benefits and limitations of the current
guidelines, and the importance of a uniform assay schema.
    A description of the planned activities for the workshop can be
found at: http://www.hesiglobal.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3620
(FDA has verified this online address but is not responsible for
subsequent changes to the Web site where it is located after this
document publishes in the Federal Register.)
    Registration and Accommodations: Registration for non-FDA attendees
should be performed online at the following address: https://evm.auxserv.duke.edu/iebms/reg/reg_p1_form.aspx?oc=10&ct=DCRIHBD09&eventid=50715. (FDA has verified this
online address but is not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web
site where it is located after this document publishes in the Federal
Register.)
    Registration for FDA attendees is also online, at the following
address: https://duke.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bmv7T8GPm4IAPd3.
    The registration deadline for paying attendees is July 15, 2013.
With the exception of FDA employees and a limited number of speakers or
organizers, registrants must pay a registration fee covering the cost
of facilities, materials, and food. The registration fees for different
categories of attendee are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                               Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Entity or Industry, Not Members of HESI..............    $950
Commercial Entity or Industry, HESI Members.....................     600
Academia, Professional Society, or Nonprofit Organization.......     250
Government (non-FDA)............................................     150
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seats are limited, and conference space will be filled in the order
in which registrations are received. Attendees are responsible for
their own accommodations.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Devi Kozeli (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance.

    Dated: June 12, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-14580 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P