[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 55410]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23238]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of NMI Health, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

September 11, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
NMI Health, Inc. (CIK No. 1088213), a Nevada corporation with its
principal place of business listed as Reno, Nevada with stock quoted on
OTC Link (previously, ``Pink Sheets'') operated by OTC Markets Group,
Inc. (``OTC Link'') under the ticker symbol NANM, because it has not
filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2013. On August 15, 2014, a delinquency letter was
sent by the Division of Corporation Finance to NMI Health, Inc.
requesting compliance with their periodic filing obligations, and the
letter was received by NMI Health, Inc. on August 18, 2014.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of NMI Health, Inc.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of NMI
Health, Inc. is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
September 11, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 24, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23238 Filed 9-11-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 64662]
[DOCID:fr16no07-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. CGD09-07-126]

Great Lakes Regional Waterways Management Forum

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: ``The Great Lakes Regional Waterways Management Forum'' will
hold a meeting to discuss various waterways management issues.
Potential agenda items will include navigation, ballast water
regulations, waterways management, Great Lakes water levels, and
discussions about the agenda for the next meeting. The meeting will be
open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 10, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 6, 2007 to be
considered at the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Village Inn, 751 Christina
Street, Point Edward, Ontario. Any written comments and materials
should be submitted to Commander (dpw-2), Ninth Coast Guard District,
1240 E. 9th Street, Room 2069, Cleveland, OH 44199.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Sharp (dpw-2), Ninth Coast Guard
District, OH 44199, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons with disabilities
requiring assistance to attend this meeting should contact Doug Sharp.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Great Lakes Waterways Management Forum
identifies and resolves waterways management issues that involve the
Great Lakes region. The forum meets twice a year to assess the Great
Lakes region, assign priorities to areas of concern, and identify
issues for resolution.
    The forum membership has identified potential agenda items for this
meeting that include: navigation, ballast water regulations, waterways
management, Great Lakes water levels, and discussions about the agenda
for the next meeting. The Forum will also provide updates from the
Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada, U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on regional projects and operations.

    Dated: November 6, 2007.
John E. Crowley, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District,
Cleveland, Ohio.
[FR Doc. 07-5687 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


                                                                SAMPLE LETTER A
                                                         Generic Substantiation

                                                         Approved OMB 2020-0003
                                                    Approval expires 01/31/2014

REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIATION FROM AN AFFECTED BUSINESS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

BY CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL; RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
(Name, title, and address of the [designated] representative of the affected business)
Re:  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request XX-FOI-XXXXX-XX
Dear (Addressee):
      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "Agency") has received a request under the FOIA for certain records [if submitted by the business whose information it is: that you submitted to the EPA]   [if submitted by an entity other than the business whose information it is: in EPA's possession]    pertaining to [description of the information that is the subject of the advance or final confidentiality determination].    [If information has been claimed as CBI:   You have claimed (all or part) of this information as confidential business information ("CBI").]    [If no claim has been made:  In accordance with applicable EPA regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, the EPA has determined that you might be expected to assert a claim that some or all of   [if submitted by the business whose information it is: the information you submitted to the EPA]    [if submitted by an entity other than the business whose information it is: this information in EPA's possession] is confidential business information ("CBI").]   Under the EPA regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, the FOIA request has been initially denied to afford you an opportunity to provide comments to [If no claim has been made:  claim this information as CBI and] substantiate your claim(s) as described below.
      This letter is to notify you that the EPA (appropriate legal office) will be making a(n) (advance or final) confidentiality determination concerning the information you have claimed as CBI.  If you feel that some or all of the information is entitled to confidential treatment, you must make the showings above with specific reference to those portions of the information you consider confidential.
      Please be specific by page (including Bates Stamp, if applicable), paragraph and sentence when identifying and substantiating the information subject to your claim. Where your claim, as originally made or as modified by your response to this letter, does not include all information on a page, please attach a copy of each such page with brackets around the text that you claim to be CBI.  Any information not specifically identified as subject to a confidentiality claim and substantiated as such in your response to this letter will be disclosed to the requestor without further notice to you.  Please note that if a page, document, group or class of documents claimed by you to be CBI contains a significant amount of information which (appropriate legal office) determines is not CBI, your CBI claim regarding that page, document, group or class of documents may be denied.
      For each item or class of information that you continue to claim as CBI, please answer the following questions, giving as much detail as possible.  Your comments in response to these questions will be used by the EPA to determine whether the information has been shown to meet the requirements listed above so as to be entitled to confidential treatment:
      1.  For what period of time do you request that the information be maintained as confidential, e.g., until a certain date, until the occurrence of a specified event, or permanently?  If the occurrence of a specific event will eliminate the need for confidentiality, please specify that event.
      2.  Information submitted to the EPA becomes stale over time.  Why should the information you claim as confidential be protected for the time period specified in your answer to question #1?
      3.  What measures have you taken to protect the information claimed as confidential?  Have you disclosed the information to anyone other than a governmental body or someone who is bound by an agreement not to disclose the information further?  If so, why should the information be considered confidential?
      4.  Is the information contained in any publicly available material such as the Internet, publicly available databases, promotional publications, annual reports, or articles? If so, specify which.
      5.  Is there any means by which a member of the public could obtain access to the information?  Is the information of a kind that you would customarily not release to the public?
      6.  Has any governmental body made a determination as to the confidentiality of the information?  If so, please attach a copy of the determination.
      7.  For each item or category of information claimed as confidential, explain with specificity why release of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to your competitive position.  Explain the specific nature of those harmful effects, why they should be viewed as substantial, and the causal relationship between disclosure and such harmful effects.  How could your competitors make use of this information to your detriment?
      8.  Do you assert that the information is submitted on a voluntary or a mandatory basis?  Please explain the reason for your assertion.  If you assert that the information is voluntarily submitted information, please explain whether the information is the kind that would customarily not be released to the public.
      9. Whether you assert t the information as voluntary or involuntary, please address why disclosure of the information would tend to lessen the availability to the EPA of similar information in the future.
      10.  If you believe any information to be (a) trade secret (s), please so state and explain the reason for your belief.  Please attach copies of those pages containing such information with brackets around the text that you claim to be (a) trade secret (s).
      11.  Explain any other issue you deem relevant (including, if pertinent, reasons why you believe that the information you claim to be CBI is not emission data or effluent data).
      [For contract-related CBI:  Enclosed is the EPA Class Determination 1-95 entitled, Confidentiality of Certain Business Information Submitted by Contractors and Prospective Contractors, which addresses the treatment of different types of information related to contracts.  You may consider reviewing Class Determination 1-95 as you develop your response.]
      Please note that you bear the burden of substantiating your confidentiality claim(s).  Generalized or conclusory statements will be given little or no weight in EPA's determination on the confidentiality of the information you claim to be CBI.
      Your comments must be postmarked or hand delivered to this office, or e-mailed to (e-mail address), by the 15th working day after your receipt of this letter.  You may seek an extension of time to submit your comments to this office, but the request must be made before the end of the 15-day period.  Except in extraordinary circumstances, no extension will be approved without the consent from the FOIA requester.  Failure to submit your comments within that time will be regarded as a waiver of your confidentiality claim or claims, and the EPA may release the information.
      If you wish to claim any information that you provide in your response to this letter to itself be confidential, you must mark the response "CONFIDENTIAL" or with a similar designation, and must bracket all text in the response that you so claim. Information so designated will be disclosed by the EPA only to the extent allowed by, and by means of the procedures set forth in, 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B.  If you fail to claim the information provided in your response as confidential, it may be made available to the public without further notice to you.
      Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me at (telephone number).
                                     Sincerely,
                       ________________________________
               (Signature and Title and Office Name and Address)
[Enclosure]

                                                                SAMPLE LETTER B
                                                         Generic Substantiation

                                                         Approved OMB 2020-0003
                                                    Approval expires 01/31/2014

REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIATION FROM AN AFFECTED BUSINESS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

BY CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL; RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
 (Name, title, and address of the [designated] representative of the affected business)
Re:  _________
Dear (Addressee):
      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "Agency" is seeking to determine the entitlement to confidentiality of     [description of the information that is the subject of the advance or final confidentiality determination]    [if submitted by the business whose information it is:  that you submitted to the EPA]    [if submitted by an entity other than the business whose information it is:  in EPA's possession.]    [If information has been claimed as CBI:  You have claimed (all or part) of this information as confidential business information ("CBI").]   [If no claim has been made:  In accordance with applicable EPA regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, the EPA has determined that you might be expected to assert a claim that some or all of    [if submitted by the business whose information it is:  the information you submitted to the EPA]    [if submitted by an entity other than the business whose information it is:  this information in EPA's possession] is confidential business information ("CBI").]
      This letter is to notify you that the EPA (appropriate legal office) will be making a(n) (advance or final) confidentiality determination concerning the information you have claimed as CBI.  If you feel that some or all of the information is entitled to confidential treatment, you must make the showings above with specific reference to those portions of the information you consider confidential.
      Please be specific by page (including Bates Stamp, if applicable), paragraph and sentence when identifying and substantiating the information subject to your claim. Where your claim, as originally made or as modified by your response to this letter, does not include all information on a page, please attach a copy of each such page with brackets around the text that you claim to be CBI.  Any information not specifically identified as subject to a confidentiality claim and substantiated as such in your response to this letter will be disclosed to the requestor without further notice to you.  Please note that if a page, document, group or class of documents claimed by you to be CBI contains a significant amount of information which our (appropriate legal office) determines is not CBI, your CBI claim regarding that page, document, group or class of documents may be denied
      For each item or class of information that you continue to claim as CBI, please answer the following questions, giving as much detail as possible.  Your comments in response to these questions will be used by the EPA to determine whether the information has been shown to meet the requirements listed above so as to be entitled to confidential treatment:
      1.  For what period of time do you request that the information be maintained as confidential, e.g., until a certain date, until the occurrence of a specified event, or permanently?  If the occurrence of a specific event will eliminate the need for confidentiality, please specify that event.
      2.  Information submitted to the EPA becomes stale over time.  Why should the information you claim as confidential be protected for the time period specified in your answer to question #1?
      3.  What measures have you taken to protect the information claimed as confidential?  Have you disclosed the information to anyone other than a governmental body or someone who is bound by an agreement not to disclose the information further?  If so, why should the information be considered confidential?
      4.  Is the information contained in any publicly available material such as the Internet, publicly available databases, promotional publications, annual reports, or articles? If so, specify which.
      5.  Is there any means by which a member of the public could obtain access to the information?  Is the information of a kind that you would customarily not release to the public?
      6.  Has any governmental body made a determination as to the confidentiality of the information?  If so, please attach a copy of the determination.
      7.  For each item or category of information claimed as confidential, explain with specificity why release of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to your competitive position.  Explain the specific nature of those harmful effects, why they should be viewed as substantial, and the causal relationship between disclosure and such harmful effects.  How could your competitors make use of this information to your detriment?
      8.  Do you assert that the information is submitted on a voluntary or a mandatory basis?  Please explain the reason for your assertion.  If you assert that the information is voluntarily submitted information, please explain whether the information is the kind that would customarily not be released to the public.
      9. Whether you assert the information as voluntary or involuntary, please address why disclosure of the information would tend to lessen the availability to the EPA of similar information in the future.
      10.  If you believe any information to be (a) trade secret (s), please so state and explain the reason for your belief.  Please attach copies of those pages containing such information with brackets around the text that you claim to be (a) trade secret (s).
      11.  Explain any other issue you deem relevant (including, if pertinent, reasons why you believe that the information you claim to be CBI is not emission data or effluent data).
      [For contract-related CBI:  Enclosed is the EPA Class Determination 1-95 entitled, Confidentiality of Certain Business Information Submitted by Contractors and Prospective Contractors, which addresses the treatment of different types of information related to contracts.  You may consider reviewing Class Determination 1-95 as you develop your response.]
      Your comments must be postmarked or hand delivered to this office, or e-mailed to (e-mail address), by the 15th working day after your receipt of this letter.  You may seek an extension of time to submit your comments to this office, but the request must be made before the end of the 15-day period.  Except in extraordinary circumstances, no extension will be approved without the consent from the FOIA requester.  Failure to submit your comments within that time will be regarded as a waiver of your confidentiality claim or claims, and the EPA may release the information.
      If you wish to claim any information that you provide in your response to this letter to itself be confidential, you must mark the response "CONFIDENTIAL" or with a similar designation, and must bracket all text in the response that you so claim. Information so designated will be disclosed by the EPA only to the extent allowed by, and by means of the procedures set forth in, 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B.  If you fail to claim the information provided in your response as confidential, it may be made available to the public without further notice to you.
      Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me at (telephone number).
                                     Sincerely,
                       ________________________________
               (Signature and Title and Office Name and Address)
[Enclosure]


Ecological Group ( of SAP) comments ( presented by Dr. Cobb)

Page 1 of 3 Study Results MRID SAP Conclusion Review of Characterization and Safety of Modified Cry3A protein and maize ( corn)

plants derived from Event MIR604 with comparison to native Cry3A protein Classification:

Acceptable 461556 01 Part of Human Health Data Package Molecular characterization of event MIR604 maize ( corn) expressing a modified Cry3A bacillus thuringiensis protein Classification:

Acceptable 461556 02 Part of Human Health Data Package Characterization of modified Cry3A protein produced in event MIR604 derived maize ( corn) and comparison with modified Cry3A protein expressed in recombinant Escherichia coli Classification:

Acceptable 461556 03 Part of Human Health Data Package Wild Mammal Testing, Tier I Limit test from UP/ Down N/ A Six of seven had no significant concerns One minor concern that doses were not verified ( Acceptable)

Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Test, Tier 1 ( Northern Bobwhite quail, Colinus virginianus) Classification:

Supplemental 461556 16 4 of seven no significant concerns Two methodological Concern Two statistical concerns ( Questionable)

Avian Oral, Tier 1 ( Broiler, Gallus domesticus) Classification:

Acceptable 462656 15 There were no significant concerns.

There was one concern that Gallus is an insenstitive species ( Acceptable) Ecological Group ( of SAP) comments ( presented by Dr. Cobb)

Page 2 of 3 Study Results MRID SAP Conclusion Freshwater Fish Testing, Tier 1 ( Rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss) Classification:

Acceptable 461556 17 462656 02 5 of seven no significant concerns One significant concern One concern of statistical rigor ( Possibly acceptable)

Estuarine & Marine Animal Testing, Tier I N/ A Nontarget Plant Studies, Tier I N/ A Nontarget Insect Testing, Tier 1 ( Lady beetle, Coccinella septempunctata) Classification:

Acceptable 462656 03 462656 04 Five of seven no significant concerns One concern of Agral effect on protein There was concern for poor statistical rigor ( Possibly acceptable pending Agral affect)

Nontarget Insect Testing, Tier 1 ( Carabid beetle, Poecilus cupreus) Classification:

Acceptable 462656 05 462656 06 Five of seven had no significant concerns Two concerns with statistical design ( Possibly acceptable)

Nontarget Insect Testing, Tier 1 ( Rove beetle, Aleochara bilineata) Classification:

Acceptable 462656 07 462656 08 Five of seven had no significant concerns Two concerns with statistical design ( Possibly acceptable)

Nontarget Insect Testing, Tier 1 ( Insidious flower bug, Orius. insidiosis) Classification:

Acceptable 462656 09 462656 10 There were no significant concerns There was concern for poor statistical rigor ( Acceptable) Ecological Group ( of SAP) comments ( presented by Dr. Cobb)

Page 3 of 3 Study Results MRID SAP Conclusion Honey Bee Testing, Tier 1 ( Apis mellifera) Classification:

Acceptable 461556 18 Five of six no concerns One concern of statistical interpretation One concern of nominal dose and the possibility that CRY3 was in suspension ( Possibly acceptable)

Aquatic Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Test,

Tier 1 Classification:

Acceptable Waiver justification Three of seven had no significant concerns Four had significant concerns ( Possibly unacceptable)

Earthworm Subchronic Toxicity Study ( Eisenia fetida) Supplemental 462656 11 462656 12 One panelist had no significant concerns Six of seven had significant concerns ( Likely Unacceptable)

Insecticidal Activity Spectrum Study Classification:

Acceptable 461556 01 461556 03 Part of Human Health Data Set Expression in a Terrestrial Environment ( Soil Fate) Classification:

Supplemental 462656 14 Three of seven had no significant concerns Four of seven had significant concerns ( Likely Unacceptable)

Environmental Fate Assessment Classification:

Supplemental 462656 13 No significant concerns at this level Concerns for flow to algae ( Acceptable)


[Federal Register: December 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 66631-66633]
[DOCID:fr16de09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

December 08, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER03-983-023; ER07-758-019; ER06-738-022; ER02-537-
026; ER06-739-022; ER07-501-021; ER08-649-014.
    Applicants: Fox Energy Company LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center,
LLC, East Coast Power Liden Holding, LLC, EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC,
Cogen Technologies Linden Venture LP, Birchwood Power Partners LP,
Shady Hills Power Company, LLC.
    Description: GE Companies Submit Supplemental Order 652 Letter to
Staff.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1340-005; ER05-41-002; ER07-357-006; ER08-
1288-005.
    Applicants: Chanarambie Power Partners LLC; Oasis Power Partners,
LLC; Fenton Power Partners I, LLC; Wapsipinicon Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Chanarambie Power Partners LLC et al submits
substitute

tariff sheets that correct the 8/20/09 filing errors of the revised
tariff sheets.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1340-006; ER07-357-007; ER08-1237-003; ER09-
1302-001; ER08-1288-006; ER09-1181-002.
    Applicants: Chanarambie Power Partners LLC, Fenton Power Partners
I, LLC, Hoosier Wind Project, LLC, Northwest Wind Partners, LLC, Oasis
Power Partners, LLC, Shiloh Wind Project 2, LLC, Wapsipinicon Wind
Project, LLC.
    Description: Chanarambie Power Partners, LLC et al submits a change
of status notice pertaining to the respective market based rate
authorizations to reflect the acquisition by EDF Development, Inc etc.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-972-002.
    Applicants: Thornwood Management Company, LLC.
    Description: Thornwood Management Company, LLC submits the Updated
Market Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 05, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-394-004; ER08-394-005.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator
submits compliance filing regarding the effect that Behind the Meter
Generation has had on the calculation of their Planning Reserve Margin
etc.
    Filed Date: 12/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 22, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-912-006; ER09-32-003; ER09-279-002; ER09-30-
003; ER09-31-003; ER02-2085-015; ER03-296-002; ER07-242-013; ER03-951-
022; ER09-282-002; ER05-481-020; ER09-1284-001.
    Applicants: Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.; Barton Windpower LLC;
Buffalo Ridge I LLC; Elm Creek Wind, LLC; Farmers City Wind, LLC;
Northern Iowa Windpower II LLC; Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC;
MinnDakota Wind LLC; Moraine Wind LLC; Moraine Wind II LLC; Trimont
Wind I LLC; Rugby Wind LLC.
    Description: Iberdrola Renewables, Inc et al. submits supplemental
information in support of the updated triennial market power analysis
filed on 6/30/09.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1057-002.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc submits Compliance Refund
Report.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1106-004.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: MATL, LLP submits Original Sheet 1 et al. Service
Agreement 1 et al to the Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric
Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 in compliance with Order 614.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-411-004.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits the results of the analysis that the August 7 Order required to
be performed by the Midwest ISO's RSG Task Force etc.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-502-003; ER09-666-004; ER09-668-004; ER09-669-
004; ER09-670-004; ER09-671-004.
    Applicants: EDF Development, Inc.; EDFD-Handsome Lake; EDFD-
Perryman; EDFD-Conemaugh; EDFD-C.P. Crane; EDFD-West Valley.
    Description: EDF Development, Inc et al. submits Notice of change
in status to inform the Commission of consummation of the Transaction
et al.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-832-004; ER02-2559-011; ER00-2391-011; ER00-
3068-010; ER98-3511-014; ER02-1903-012; ER99-2917-012; ER98-3566-020;
ER98-3564-015; ER02-2120-008; ER05-714-005; ER04-290-006; ER02-256-003;
ER09-990-003; ER04-187-008; ER05-236-008; ER02-2166-010; ER05-661-004;
ER03-1375-007.
    Applicants: NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC; Backbone Mountain
Windpower LLC; Doswell Limited Partnership; FPL Energy Cape, LLC; FPLE
Maine Hydro, LLC; FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P.; FPL ENERGY MH50, LP;
FPL Energy Power Marketing, Inc.; FPL Energy Wyman IV LLC; FPLE Rhode
Island State Energy, LP; Gexa Energy LLC; Mill Run Windpower, LLC;
NextEra Energy SeaBrook, LLC; Meyersdale Windpower, LLC; North Jersey
Energy Associates, a L.P.; Northeast Energy Associates, LP;
Pennsylvania Windfarms, Inc.; Somerset Windpower LLC; Waymart Wind Farm
L.P.
    Description: NextEra Companies Notice of Change in Status Regarding
the Market-Based Rate Authorizations for the ISO-NE and PJM Markets.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1312-002; ER09-1313-002.
    Applicants: Riverside Energy Center, LLC; RockGen Energy, LLC.
    Description: Riverside Energy Center, LLC et al. submits a
compliance filing of revised Rate Schedule FERC 2 et al.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1727-001; ER09-1728-001.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
et al. submits compliance filing which revised the original 9/21/09
proposal to reflect modifications proposed in the Applicants' 10/23/09
Answer etc.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-92-003.
    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC.
    Description: EDF Trading North America, LLC submits a Notice to
inform the Commission that the EDF Trading affiliate, EDF Development,
Inc, and Constellation Energy Group, Inc has consummated a transaction
etc.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-139-001.
    Applicants: Atlantic Path 15, LLC.
    Description: Atlantic Path 15, LLC submits filing Sub, Fifth
Revised Sheet 16 to its Transmission Owner Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff
Revised 1 etc.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0061.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-142-002.
    Applicants: Entergy Power, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Power, Inc submits Notice of Succession and
name change.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-147-001.
    Applicants: Great River Energy.
    Description: Great River Energy et al. submits Substitute Original
Sheet No 3633.11 et al.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-288-001.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company & Florida
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Co and Florida Power Corp
submits an amendment to the 11/18/09 Section 205 filing.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-354-000.
    Applicants: Starion Energy Inc.
    Description: Starion Energy, Inc submits an application for Order
Accepting Rates for Filing and Granting Waivers and Blanket Approvals.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-385-000.
    Applicants: Castleton Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Application of Castleton Energy Services, LLC for
market based rate authority, associated waivers, blanket approvals,
notification of price reporting status and request for Category 1
Seller determinations.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-389-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits the annual
adjustment to a transmission rate under the Interconnection Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-390-000.
    Applicants: Avista Turbine Power, Inc.
    Description: Avista Turbine Power, Inc submits a request for
authorization for affiliate transactions and request for expedited
action.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-391-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc submits an amended
Interconnection Agreement with Cleco Power LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-392-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.
    Description: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC submits request
for authorization to make wholesale power sales to its affiliate, etc.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-393-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits its Open Access
Transmission Tariff to reduce the currently effective Violation
Relaxation Limit governing operational constraints etc.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-394-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy and
Operating Reserve Markets Tariff, terminating provisions related to the
Dispatch Band Option etc.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091208-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29880 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53108]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4497-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4497-DR), dated March 28, 2020,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated March 28, 2020 for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended
to include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the Commonwealth of Kentucky are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20666 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36979-36981]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13477]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77982; File No. SR-ICC-2016-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Update and Formalize the ICC
Stress Testing Framework

June 2, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On March 31, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'' or ``ICE Clear
Credit'') 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 update and formalize ICC's stress testing
framework. On April 20, 2016 ICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposal.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 21, 2016.\4\ The Commission did not receive
comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ ICE Clear Credit filed Amendment No. 1 to further revise the
Stress Testing Framework to incorporate language regarding the
treatment of unrated reference entities for the purposes of applying
the stress scenarios. Under Amendment No. 1, ICC has clarified that
unrated reference entities are treated as non-investment grade
entities with respect to the application of stress scenarios.
Amendment No. 1 is not subject to comment because it is a technical,
clarifying amendment that does not alter the substance of the
proposed rule change or raise any novel regulatory issues.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77633 (April 15,
2016), 81 FR 23531 (April 21, 2016) (SR-ICC-2016-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to update and
formalize ICC's Stress Testing Framework, which sets forth the stress
testing practices instituted by ICC. The framework, according to ICC,
is designed to: Articulate the types of stress tests executed and the
main purpose of each type of test; describe how stress tests are
conducted; define the actual test scenarios currently executed; outline
the range of remedial actions available (which, depending on the
results, may include enhancements to the risk methodology or certain
Clearing Participant (``CP'') specific action); and explain how stress
test results are used in the governance process.
    ICC states that the stress testing framework helps ICC identify
potential weaknesses in the risk management methodology currently used
and, as a result, allows ICC to identify potential model enhancements
to the Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund models, as well as identify the
need to exercise short term remedies based upon specific CP positions
and risk of exposure prior to introduction of model enhancements.
    ICC represents that during the execution of stress testing, the ICC
Risk Department (``Risk Department'') applies the standard set of pre-
defined Stress Test Scenarios against actual portfolios, sample
portfolios derived from currently cleared positions, and expected
future portfolios, as appropriate, to generate hypothetical profits or
losses. According to ICC, the Risk Department compares the hypothetical
losses to the available funds from the Initial Margin requirements and
Guaranty Fund contribution related to the selected portfolios. A
scenario deficiency is identified in the event that the hypothetical
loss exceeds the protection provided by the available collateral assets
and mutualization funds. ICC states that, depending on the plausibility
of the stress scenarios and the frequency and severity of any resulting
deficiencies, the Risk Department may recommend enhancements to the
risk methodology.
    ICC represents that it utilizes certain predefined scenarios for
its stress testing, which fall into three standard categories: (i)
Historically observed extreme but plausible market scenarios; (ii)
historically observed and hypothetically constructed (forward looking)
extreme but plausible market scenarios with a baseline credit event;
and (iii) extreme model response tests (collectively, ``Stress Test
Scenarios''). ICC states that discordant scenarios (i.e., scenarios
under which selected risk factors move in opposite directions; commonly
the behavior deviates from historically observed behavior) are applied
to certain instruments to account for discordant price moves.
    ICC asserts that it applies the Stress Test Scenarios to a variety
of portfolios. Specifically, ICC applies the Stress Test Scenarios to
all currently cleared portfolios. ICC states that its Risk Department
may also apply the Stress Test Scenarios to sample portfolios obtained
from currently cleared portfolios and may also apply the Stress Test
Scenarios to staff-constructed, expected future portfolios, as ICC's
Risk

Department deems appropriate, to mimic expected future portfolios upon
the launch of new services. In this case, ICC states that the stress
test analysis is presented to and reviewed by ICC's Risk Committee
prior to the launch of the new clearing services. ICC represents that
it may design specific portfolio sets to test the validity of certain
model/system assumptions. According to ICC, the stress test results
from such expected future portfolio executions are reviewed and
analyzed internally, and may be used to support future model
initiatives.
    ICC states that it also designs stress test analysis directed
toward the identification of wrong-way risk in cleared portfolios. For
every cleared portfolio, ICC asserts that all positions in index risk
factors and single name risk factors that exhibit high degree of
association with the considered CP are used to create a sub-portfolio
which will be subjected to additional stress test analysis. The
constructed sub-portfolio is subjected to the same Stress Test
Scenarios utilized by ICC.
    The framework also describes ICC's reverse stress testing (Guaranty
Fund Adequacy Analysis) practices. According to ICC, the purpose of the
adequacy analysis is to provide estimates for the level of protection
achieved by the clearinghouse via its Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund
models. In performing its analysis, ICC represents that it considers a
combination of adverse price realizations and idiosyncratic credit
events associated with reference obligations on which the stress tested
CP sold protection. ICC's Stress Testing Framework also describes the
correlation sensitivity analysis performed by ICC, based on Monte Carlo
simulations, as well as the additional recovery rate sensitivity
analysis.
    ICC's framework also details how stress testing is utilized in
ICC's governance process. ICC states that it maintains a framework to
ensure that ICC's Risk Committee and Board are provided with
transparency into the Risk Department's stress test results and
contemplated methodology changes. According to ICC, stress testing
results are reviewed, at a minimum, by ICC's Risk Department weekly.
Additionally, ICC states that stress testing results are provided to
ICC's Risk Committee weekly and a report of such results is presented
to the Risk Committee on a monthly basis. Ad hoc reviews of the stress
testing results may be undertaken at the discretion of ICC's Chief Risk
Officer.
    In the event of any deficiencies noted upon stress testing, ICC
represents that its Risk Department must report such deficiencies to
ICC senior management and the Risk Committee, and either (a) provide
analysis that the results do not highlight a significant weakness in
the stress testing or risk methodology; or (b) recommend enhancements
to the stress testing or risk methodology. ICC states that ICC senior
management and the Risk Committee will review and recommend any stress
testing or risk methodology enhancements to the ICC Board, which is
responsible for approval. ICC states that the Risk Department may also
choose to add new scenarios and portfolios in response to deficiencies
noted upon stress testing; in this case, the Risk Department will
discuss with the Risk Committee, which will recommend to the Board,
which is responsible for approval.
    ICC asserts that the Risk Department maintains a standard set of
Stress Scenarios and portfolios (namely actual portfolios, sample
portfolios derived from currently cleared portfolios, and expected
future portfolios) that are executed on a regular basis. In the event
that a scenario or portfolio in the standard set is no longer
applicable, or has been superseded by new scenarios or portfolios, ICC
claims that the Risk Department may wish to retire or modify the
outdated scenario or portfolio, in which case, the Risk Department
will, with ICC senior management: Conduct analysis to support a
recommendation; discuss the analysis and obtain a recommendation from
the Risk Committee; and present the final analysis to the Board for
approval. ICC states that, in the interest of prudent risk management,
the Risk Department may wish to add scenarios and/or portfolios to the
standard set and that Risk Committee or Board approval is not required
unless such scenarios and/or portfolios are added in response to stress
testing deficiencies, as described above.
    Previous versions of ICC's framework included the Risk Working
Group in the governance structure, as ICC consulted with the Risk
Working Group as it worked to develop its initial stress testing
approach and appropriate scenarios. ICC states that, as it now has a
fully developed approach, stress testing remains focused on data
analysis and reporting results, which ICC claims are addressed at the
Risk Committee and Board level. Thus, to reflect current governance
practices, references to the Risk Working Group have been removed from
its framework.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \5\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \6\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3),\7\ requires registered
clearing agencies to maintain, at a minimum, sufficient financial
resources to withstand a default by the participant family to which it
has the largest exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions,
and for registered clearing agencies acting as a central counterparty
for security-based swaps, to maintain additional financial resources
sufficient to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant
families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible
market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC's Stress Testing Framework establishes ICC's stress testing
practices. These stress testing practices are designed, among other
things, to ensure the adequacy of ICC's financial resources under
applicable legal requirements, and set forth the methodology by which
ICC evaluates potential portfolio profits and losses, compared to the
Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund funds maintained, in order to identify
any potential weakness in ICC's risk methodology. Such financial
resources will facilitate ICC's continued operations in the event of a
participant default. As such, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule changes are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions,

derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions within the meaning
of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \9\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the proposed changes will satisfy
the applicable requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\10\ In particular, the
Stress Testing Framework contains stress testing practices designed to
ensure that ICE Clear Credit maintains sufficient financial resources
to withstand a default by the participant family to which it has the
largest exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions, and that
as a registered clearing agency acting as a central counterparty for
security-based swaps, ICC maintains additional financial resources
sufficient to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant
families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible
market conditions, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(3).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \12\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICC-2016-005) as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13477 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 19583-19584]
[DOCID:fr10ap08-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Delays in
Processing of Special Permits Applications

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

ACTION: List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c),
PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications
that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay
and the expected completion date for action on each application is
provided in association with each identified application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office
of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Key to ``Reason for Delay''

    1. Awaiting additional information from applicant.
    2. Extensive public comment under review.
    3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact
or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis.
    4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of
special permit applications.

Meaning of Application Number Suffixes

    N--New application.
    M--Modification request.
    PM--Party to application with modification request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2008.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

                                         Modification to Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Estimated date
        Application No.                           Applicant                   Reason for delay    of completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11579-M........................  Austin Powder Company, Cleveland, OH.......              3, 4        04-30-2008
 10964-M.......................  Kidde Aerospace & Defense, Wilson, NC......                 4        04-30-2008
 11650-M.......................  Autoliv ASP, Inc., Ogden, UT...............                 4        04-30-2008

 13173-M.......................  Dynetek Industries Ltd., Calgary Alberta,                   1        04-30-2008
                                  Canada.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         New Special Permit Applications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14385-N........................  Kansas City Southern Railway Company,                       4        04-30-2008
                                  Kansas City, MO.
14566-N........................  Nantong CIMC Tank Equipment Co. Ltd.,                       3        04-30-2008
                                  Nantong City.
14584-N........................  WavesinSolids LLC, State College, PA.......              3, 4        04-30-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-7499 Filed 4-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35084-35085]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14119]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0323; FRL-10025-85-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Electric Arc Furnace
Steelmaking Facilities (EPA ICR Number 2277.06, OMB Control Number
2060-0608), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
August 31, 2021. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on May 12, 2020 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 2,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0323, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities (40
CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY) apply to existing facilities and new
Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steelmaking facilities that are area sources
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. These standards establish
particulate matter (PM) emission limits for control devices and opacity
limits for melt shops, pollution prevention requirements for ferrous
scrap that is melted in EAFs, and monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. New facilities include those that commenced
construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. NESHAP
standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and
periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities.
They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are used by
EPA to determine compliance with these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of electric arc
furnace steelmaking facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart YYYYY).
    Estimated number of respondents: 81 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 4,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $485,000 (per year), which includes $15,500
in annualized capital/startup costs. There are no operation &
maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated respondent burden as currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved Burdens. This decrease is not due to any program
changes. The decrease in burden from the most-recently approved ICR is
due to a decrease in the number of affected existing facilities, as
identified by a review of the EAF facility source list and by
consulting with internal Agency experts at OAQPS. This change also
results in an increase in capital/startup costs. The previous ICR did
not account for any capital/startup costs as the growth rate for the
industry was very

low during that time period, so no initial compliance costs were
associated with these standards. However, we expect that there will be
1.6 new respondents each year over the next three years, and the
increase in capital/startup costs accounts for the cost of initial
performance testing for those facilities. Despite this increase in
capital/startup costs, the overall cost estimate for this burden has
decreased due to a decrease in the number of currently existing
facilities.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-14119 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P