!VIAN½0ATHOLOGY

355-368.
$UTTA¹'.¹$EVRIESE¹,!¹AND¹6AN¹!SSCHE¹0&
, 1983. Susceptibility of clostridia
from farm animals to 21 antimicrobial agents including some used for growth
promotion.
*OURNAL½OF½!NTIMICROBIAL½#HEMOTHERAPY

347-356.
$YKSTRA¹$$
, 1978. Relationship of anaerobic bacteria to coccidiosis in the chicken.
$ISSERTATION½!BSTRACTS½)NTERNATIONAL
¹"
7.
%DWARDS¹$)
, 1977. The action of metronidazole in DNA.
*OURNAL½OF½!NTIMICROBIAL
#HEMOTHERAPY

43-48.
%KSTR¶M¹,
'¹3LANINA¹0¹AND¹$AHLSTR¶M
+ING¹,
, 1984. Tissue residues of clopidol
(3,4-dichloro-2,6-dimethyl-4-pyridinol) in chickens in relation to withdrawal times.
&OOD½!DDITIVES½AND½#ONTAMINANTS

17-22.

7. Coccidiostats
SOU 1997:132
188
%LIZONDO¹'¹'ONSEBATT¹-%¹3ALAZAR¹!-¹,ARES¹)¹3ANTIAGO¹0¹(ERRERA¹*
(ONG¹%¹AND¹/STROSKY
7EGMAN¹0
, 1996. Genotoxic effects of metronidazole.
-UTATION½2ESEARCH

75-80.
%LWINGER¹+¹%NGSTR¶M¹"¹"ERNDTSON¹%¹&OSSUM¹/¹AND¹7ALDENSTEDT¹,
,  1996.
Effect of growth promoters and coccidiostats on performance and growth of
#LOSTRIDIUM½PERFRINGENS
in the caeca of broilers.
)N½PROCEEDINGS½OF½88½7ORLDS
0OULTRY½#ONGRESS
2-5 September, New Delhi. p. 219.
%LWINGER¹+¹%NGSTR¶M¹"¹&OSSUM¹/¹(ASSAN¹3¹AND¹4EGL¶F¹"
, 1994. Effect of
coccidiostats on necrotic enteritis and performance in broiler chickens.
3WEDISH
*OURNAL½OF½!GRIULTURAL½2ESEARCH

39-44.
%LWINGER¹+¹3CHNEITZ¹#¹"ERNDTSON¹%¹&OSSUM¹/¹4EGL¶F¹"¹AND¹%NGSR¶M¹"
,
1992. Factors affecting the incidence of necrotic enteritis, caecal carriage of
#LOSTRIDIUM½½PERFRINGENS
and bird performance in broiler chickens.
!CTA½6ETERINARIA
3CANDINAVICA

361-370.
&AHIM¹-¹AND¹0RESSMAN¹"#
, 1981. Cardiovascular effect and pharmacokinetics of the
carboxylic ionophore monensin in dogs and rabbits.
,IFE½3CIENCES

1959-1966.
&!/7(/
, 1989. 34th report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food
Additives.
4ECHNICAL½REPORT½SERIES½.O½½
20-32.  WHO, Geneva.
&!/7(/
, 1990. Monographs prepared by the 34th meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Committee on Food Additives. Residues of some veterinary drugs in animals
and foods.
&!/½&OOD½AND½NUTRITION½PAPER½
41/2 pp. 106.  WHO, Rome.
&!/7(/
, 1995. Forty-second report of the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives. Evaluation of certain veterinary drug residues in food.
7(/
4ECHNICAL½2EPORT½3ERIES½.O½½
pp. 19-21.  WHO, Geneva.
&OWLER¹.'
1995.
!NTICOCCIDIAL½COMPENDIUM
Janssen Pharmaceutica Animal Health.
&RIGG¹-¹"ROZ¹*¹AND¹7EBER¹'
, 1983. Compatibility studies of ionophore
anticoccidials with various antibiotics and chemotherapeutics in broiler chicks.
!RCHIV½FUR½'EFLUGELKUNDE

213-220.
'ALITZER¹3*¹+RUCKENBERG¹3-¹AND¹+IDD¹*2
, 1986. Pathologic changes associated
with experimental lasalocid and monensin toxicosis in cattle.
!MERICAN½*OURNAL½OF
6ETERINARY½2ESEARCH

2624-2626.
'ALITZER¹3*¹AND¹7¹/&
, 1984. A literature review on the toxicity of lasalocid, a
polyether antibiotic.
6ETERINARY½AND½(UMAN½4OXICOLOGY

322-326.
'LOVER¹'*¹AND¹7OBESER¹'
, 1983. Monensin toxicity in a captive white-tailed deer.
*OURNAL½OF½:OO½!NIMAL½-EDICINE

13-16.
'RANOT¹)¹"ARTOV¹)¹0LAVNIK¹)¹7AX¹%¹(URWITZ¹3¹AND¹0INES¹-
, 1991. Increased
skin tearing in broilers and reduced collagen synthesis in skin
½IN½VIVO
and
IN½VITRO
in
response to the coccidiostats halofuginone.
0OULTRY½3CIENCE

1559-1563.

SOU 1997:132
7. Coccidiostats
189
(ALVORSON¹$!¹6AN¹$IJK¹#¹AND¹"ROWN¹0
, 1982. Ionophore toxicity in turkey
breeders.
!VIAN½$ISEASES

634-639.
(ANRAHAN¹,!¹#ORRIER¹$%¹AND¹.AOH¹3!
, 1981. Monensin toxicosis in broiler
chickens.
6ETERINARY½0ATHOLOGY

665-671.
(ITE¹-¹3KEGGS¹(¹.OVEROSKE¹*¹AND¹0ECK¹(
, 1976. Mutagenic evaluation of
ronidazole.
-UTATION½2ESEARCH

289-304.
(OBSON
&ROHOCK¹!¹AND¹*OHNSON¹(!
, 1983. Coccidiostat residues in poultry excreta.
*OURNAL½OF½THE½3CIENCE½OF½&OOD½AND½!GRICULTURE

37-44.
(ORROX¹.%
, 1984. Salinomycin poisoning in turkeys.
6ETERINARY½2ECORD

52.
(ORTON
3MITH¹#¹AND¹,ONG¹0,
,  1963. Coccidia and coccidiosis in the domestic fowl
and turkey.
)N
B. Dawes (ed.),
!DVANCES½IN½0ARASITOLOGY½
Vol. 1. Academic
Press, London. pp. 68-104.
(OWELL¹*¹(ANSSON¹*¹/NDERKA¹$¹AND¹(ARRIES¹7.
, 1980. Monensin toxicity in
chickens.
!VIAN½$ISEASES

1050-1053.
*ACOB¹4!¹!LVARO¹2&¹#HAPIN¹,2¹'REEN¹-,¹-ERIWETHER¹(4¹/LSON¹'
6AN¹)DERSTINE¹!!¹AND¹7OLF¹&*
, 1982. Tissue residues of arprinocid in
chickens. 1. Depletion of residues in tissues of chickens fed carbon-14-labelled
arprinocid.
*OURNAL½OF½!GRICULTURAL½AND½&OOD½#HEMISTRY

248-253.
*EFFERS¹4+
,  1989. Anticoccidial drug resistance: a review with emphasis on the
polyether ionophores.
)N½PROCEEDINGS½OF½TH½)NTERNATIONAL½#OCCIDIOSIS½#ONFERENCE
#OCCIDIA½AND½INTESTINAL½COCCIDIOMORPHS
INRA, 17-20 October, Tours.
*OHNSON¹,7¹AND¹%DGAR¹3!
, 1986. Ea-B and Ea-C cellular antigen genes in Leghorn
lines resistant and susceptible to acute cecal coccidiosis.
0OULTRY½3CIENCE

241-
252.
*ONES¹*%¹3OLIS¹*¹(UGHES¹",¹#ASTALDO¹$*¹AND¹4OLER¹*%
, 1990. Reproduction
responses of broiler-breeders to anticoccidial agents.
0OULTRY½3CIENCE

27-36.
+ABELL¹'¹3AINI¹2+¹3OMANI¹0¹AND¹0RESSMAN¹"#
, 1979. Effects of the carboxylic
ionophore monensin on regional blood flow in normal and in ischaemic
myocardium in normal and anesthetized dogs.
*OURNAL½OF½0HARMACOLOGY½AND
%XPERIMENTAL½4HERAPEUTICS

231-237.
+AMPHUES¹*¹-EYER¹(¹,IEBLER¹%-¹AND¹*OHANNSEN¹!
, 1990. Tierernährung fur
tierärzte - aktuelle fälle klinische störungen bei pferden nach aufnahme ionophore-
haltigen mischfutters.
$EUTSCHE½4IER¤RZTLICHE½7OCHENSCHRIFT

537-539.
+AN¹#!¹VAN¹,EEUWEN¹7¹AND¹VAN¹'END¹7
, 1989. Residuen van amprolium in
eieren na toediening van amprolium/ethopabaat aan leghennen en opfokleghennen.
4IJDSCHRIFT½VOOR½$IERGENEESKUNDE

76-82.
+ARSAI¹&¹AND¹0APP¹,
, 1990. Gehäuft auftretende narazin-vergiftung bei hunden.
4IER¤RZTLICHE½5MSCHAU

3116-324.

7. Coccidiostats
SOU 1997:132
190
+ONDO¹&
, 1988.
)N½VITRO
lecithinase activity and sensitivity to 22 antimicrobial agents of
#LOSTRIDIUM½PERFRINGENS
isolated from necrotic enteritis of broiler chickens.
2ESEARCH½IN½6ETERINARY½3CIENCE

337-340.
+YRIAKIS¹3#¹3ARRIS¹,¹+RITAS¹3+¹3AOULIDIS¹,¹4SINAS¹!#¹AND¹4SILOYIANNIS
6+
, 1995. The effect of salinomycin on the control of
#LOSTRIDIUM½PERFRINGENS
type A infection in growing pigs.
*OURNAL½OF½6ETERINARY½-EDICINE½SERIES½"

355-
359.
,ANGSTON¹6#¹'ALEY¹&¹,OVELL¹2¹AND¹"UCK¹7"
, 1985. Toxicity and therapeutics
of monensin: a review.
6ETERINARY½-EDICINE

75-84.
,EVY¹*6¹AND¹)NESI¹'
, 1974. Positive inotrophic effect on isolated human atrial muscle
produced by the ionophore X-537A.
*OURNAL½OF½#LINICAL½0HARMACOLOGY

32-34.
,ILLEHOJ¹(3
, 1986.
)N½VITRO
assessment of T-cell proliferation response to stage specific
parasite antigens.
6ETERINARY½)MMUNOLOGY½AND½)MMUNOPATHOLOGY

321-330.
,ILLEHOJ¹(3
, 1988. Influence of inoculation dose, inoculation schedule, chicken age and
host genetics on disease susceptibility and development of resistance to
%IMERIA
TENELLA
infection.
!VIAN½$ISEASES

437-444.
,ILLEHOJ¹(3¹2UFF¹-$¹"ACON¹,$¹,AMONT¹3*¹AND¹*EFFERS¹4+
, 1989. Genetic
control of immunity to
%IMERIA½TENELLA
Interaction of MHC genes and non-MHC
linked genes influences levels of disease susceptibility in chickens.
6ETERINARY
)MMUNOLOGY½AND½)MMUNOPATHOLOGY

135-148.
,INDSAY¹$3¹AND¹"LAGBURN¹",
,  1995. Antiprotozoan drugs.
)N
H.R. Adams (ed.),
6ETERINARY½0HARMACOLOGY½AND½4HERAPEUTICS½
7th ed.,    Iowa State University Press,
Ames.
,ONG¹0,¹ED
1990.
#OCCIDIOSIS½OF½MAN½AND½DOMESTIC½ANIMALS
. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Ann Arbor, Boston.
,ONG¹0,¹AND¹2EID¹7-
, 1982. A guide for the diagnosis of coccidiosis in chickens.
Report 204. August 1982. University of Georgia, Georgia.
,OYD
%VANS¹,0-
1991.
4RENDS½IN½6ETERINARY½2ESEARCH½AND½$EVELOPMENT½
!NTICOCCIDIALS
PJB Publications LTD.
,YNCH¹-*¹&RAME¹'-¹%RICSSON¹*&¹)LLYES¹%&¹AND¹.OWAKOWSKI¹-!
,  1992.
Semduramicin in the chicken. Tissue depletion studies,
8ENOBIOTICS½AND½&OOD½

PRODUCING½!NIMALS½
Vol. capter 5. American Chemical Society.
-ACPHERSON¹)
,  1978. Coccidiosis in broilers and turkeys.
)N
P.L. Long, K.N. Boorman
and B.M. Freeman (eds.),
!VIAN½#OCCIDIOSIS½
British Poultry Science Ltd,
Edinburgh. pp. 465-494.
-ANCUSO¹'¹3TAFFA¹-¹%RRANI¹!¹"ERDONDINI¹2-¹AND¹&ABBRI¹0
, 1990.
Occupational dermatitis in animal feed mill workers.
#ONTACT½DERMATITIS

37-41.

SOU 1997:132
7. Coccidiostats
191
-ANNING¹*'¹(ARGIS¹"-¹(INTON¹!¹*R¹#ORRIER¹$%¹$E,OACH¹*2¹AND
#REGER¹#2
, 1994. Effect of selected antibiotics and anticoccidials on
3ALMONELLA
ENTERITIDIS
cecal colonization and organ invasion in Leghorn chicks.
!VIAN½$ISEASES

256-261.
-C$OUGALD¹,2
,  1991. Histomoniasis.
)N
B.W. Calnek (ed.),
$ISEASES½OF½0OULTRY½
9th
ed.,    Wolfe Publishing Ltd. pp. 804-812.
-C$OUGALD¹,2¹&ULLER¹,¹AND¹3OLIS¹*
, 1986. Drug-sensitivity of 99 isolates of
coccidia from broiler farms.
!VIAN½$ISEASES

690-694.
-EINGASSNER¹*'¹3CHMOOK¹&0¹#ZOK¹2¹AND¹(¹-
, 1978. Enhancement of the
anticoccidial activity of polyether antibiotics in chickens by tiamulin.
0OULTRY
3CIENCE

308-313.
-ILLER¹$*3¹/#ONNOR¹**¹AND¹2OBERTS¹.,
, 1986. Tiamulin/salinomycin
interactions in pigs.
6ETERINARY½2ECORD

73-75.
-ILLER¹$3*
, 1990. Drug compatibilities.
0IG½6ETERINARY½*OURNAL

9-23.
-UYLLE¹%¹6ANDENHENDE¹#¹/YAERT¹7¹4HOONEN¹(¹AND¹6LAEMINCK
, 1981. Delayed
monensin sodium toxicity in horses.
%QUINE½6ETERINARY½*OURNAL

107-108.
.AGARAJA¹4'¹!VERY¹4"¹'ALITZER¹3*¹AND¹(ARMON¹$,
, 1985. Effect of
ionophore antibiotics on experimentally induced lactic acidosis in cattle.
!MERICAN
*OURNAL½OF½6ETERINARY½2ESEARCH

2444-2452.
.AGARAJA¹4'¹AND¹4AYLOR¹-"
, 1987. Susceptibility and resistance of ruminal bacteria
to antimicrobial feed additives.
!PPLIED½AND½%NVIRONMENTAL½-ICROBIOLOGY

1620-
1625.
.ATION¹0.¹#ROWE¹30¹AND¹7.¹(
, 1982. Clinical signs and pathology of accidental
monensin poisoning in sheep.
#ANADIAN½6ETERINARY½*OURNAL

323-326.
.,.
, 1995. Guidelines on ATCvet classification, 2nd edition.
½
36.  Nordic Council on
Medicines in association with WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics
Methodology in Oslo, Uppsala.
.OVILLA¹-.
, 1992. The veterinary importance of the toxic syndrome induced by
ionophores.
6ETERINARY½AND½(UMAN½4OXICOLOGY

66-70.
/LSEN¹02¹AND¹(EBJORN¹-
, 1982. Safety of metronidazole?
!RCH½0HARM½#HEMI

499-507.
/STROSKY
7EGMAN¹0¹,ARES¹!SSEF¹)¹3ANTIAGO¹0¹%LIZONDO¹'¹AND¹-ONTERO¹2
,
1994. Metronidazole
HPRT½
mutation induction in sheep and the relationship with its
elimination rate.
-UTATION½2ESEARCH

253-259.
0EETERS¹*%¹$ERIJCKE¹*¹6ERLINDEN¹-¹AND¹7YFFELS¹2
, 1994. Sensitivity of avian
%IMERIA
spp. to seven chemical and five ionophore anticoccidials in five Belgian
integrated broiler operations.
!VIAN½$ISEASES

483-493.

7. Coccidiostats
SOU 1997:132
192
0ERELMAN¹"¹0IRAK¹-¹AND¹3MITH¹"
, 1993. Effects of the accidental feeding of
lasalocid sodium to broiler breeder chickens.
6ETERINARY½2ECORD

271-273.
0ERL¹3¹3CHLOSBERG¹!¹(OIDA¹'¹$AVIDSON¹-¹9AKOBSON¹"¹AND¹/RGAD¹5
, 1991.
Cardiac failure in beef cattle fed dried poultry litter.
6ETERINARY½2ECORD

35-36.
0INION¹*,¹"ILGILI¹3&¹%CKMAN¹-+¹AND¹(ESS¹*"
, 1995. The effects of
halofuginone and salinomycin, alone and in combination, on live performance and
skin characteristics of broilers.
0OULTRY½3CIENCE

391-397.
0RESCOTT¹*&¹AND¹"AGGOT¹*$¹EDS
, 1993.
!NTIMICROBIAL½THERAPY½IN½VETERINARY
MEDICINE
2nd ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames. pp. 612.
1UARLES¹#,¹-ATHIS¹'&¹-C$OUGALD¹,2¹AND¹#ONWAY¹$0
,  1992. Efficacy of
semduramicin, salinomycin and monensin against
%IMERIA½SPP
. in broiler chickens
in floor pens.
)N½PROCEEDINGS½OF½8)8½7ORLDS½0ULTRY½#ONGRESS
Amsterdam. pp. 590-
593.
2ADA¹6¹2YCHLY¹)¹AND¹6ORISEK¹+
, 1994. Susceptibility of chicken intestinal
lactobacilli to coccidiostats.
!CTA½6ETERINARIA½"RNO

9-12.
2EITZ¹-¹2UMPF¹-¹AND¹+NITZA¹2
, 1991a. DNA single strand-breaks in lymphocytes
after metronidazole therapy.
!RZNEIMITTEL
&ORSCHUNG

155-156.
2EITZ¹-¹2UMPF¹-¹AND¹+NITZA¹2
, 1991b. Metronidazole induces DNA strand-breaks
in cultures of human lymphocytes and phytohemagglutinin-stimulated human
lymphocytes.
!RZNEIMITTEL
&ORSCHUNG

65-69.
2UFF¹-$
,  1989. Interaction of avian coccidiosis with other diseases: a review.
)N
PROCEEDINGS½OF½½#OCCIDIA½AND½INTESTINAL½COCCIDIOMORPHS½TH½)NTERNATIONAL
#OCCIDIOSIS½#ONFERENCE
17-20 October, Tours.
3AFRAN¹.¹!IZENBERG¹)¹AND¹"ARK¹(
, 1993. Paralytic syndrome attributed to lasalocid
residues in a commercial ration fed to dogs.
#LINICAL½2EPORTS

1273-1275.
3AINSBURY¹$7"
, 1991. Disinfection and coccidiosis control.
0OULTRY½)NTERNATIONAL
-ARCH
20.
3ANDERCOCK¹$!¹AND¹-ITCHELL¹-!
, 1995. The possible roles of Na
+
and Ca
2+
overload in the mechanism of monensin-induced myotoxicity in isolated avian
(
'ALLUS½DOMESTICUS
) skeletal muscle.
*OURNAL½OF½0HYSIOLOGY

41.
3CHELLING¹'4
, 1984. Monensin mode of action in the rumen.
*OURNAL½OF½!NIMAL½3CIENCE

1518-1527.

SOU 1997:132
7. Coccidiostats
193
3CHLOSBERG¹!¹(ARMELIN¹!¹0ERL¹3¹0ANO¹'¹$AVIDSON¹-¹/RGAD¹5¹+ALI¹5


[Federal Register: September 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 45891-45893]
[DOCID:fr04se09-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the California High Speed
Train Project From Palmdale to Bakersfield, CA

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the public that FRA and the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will jointly prepare a
project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Palmdale to Bakersfield section of the
Authority's proposed California High Speed Train (HST) System in
compliance with relevant state and federal laws, in particular the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    In 2001, the Authority and FRA started a tiered environmental
review process for the HST system and in 2005, completed the first tier
California High Speed Train Program EIR/EIS (Statewide Program EIR/EIS)
and approved the statewide HST system for intercity travel in
California between the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the
San Francisco Bay Area in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los
Angeles and San Diego in the south. The approved HST system would be
about 800-miles long, with electric propulsion and steel-wheel-on-
steel-rail trains capable of maximum operating speeds of 220 miles per
hour (mph) on a mostly dedicated system of fully grade-separated,
access-controlled steel track and with state-of-the-art safety,
signaling, communication, and automated train control systems. In
approving the HST system, the Authority and FRA also selected preferred
corridor alignments and station location options throughout most of the
system. In 2008, the Authority and FRA completed a second program EIR/
EIS to evaluate alignments and station locations within the broad
corridor between and including the Altamont Pass and the Pacheco Pass
to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley portions of the HST system.
    The preparation of the Palmdale to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS
will involve the development of preliminary engineering designs and the
assessment of potential environmental effects associated with the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the HST system, including
track and ancillary facilities along the State Route 58/14 corridor
from Bakersfield to Palmdale.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Palmdale to Bakersfield HST
Project EIR/EIS should be provided to the Authority by 5 p.m., Monday,
November 2, 2009. Public scoping meetings are scheduled from September
15, 2009 to September 17, 2009, as noted below in the cities of
Bakersfield, CA, Tehachapi, CA and Palmdale, CA.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope should be sent to Ms. Carrie
Bowen, Regional Director, ATTN: Bakersfield to Palmdale, California
High Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA
95814, or via e-mail with subject line ``Palmdale to Bakersfield HST''
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may also be provided orally or in
writing at the scoping meetings scheduled at the following locations:
     Red Lion Hotel, 2400 Camino Del Rio Court. Bakersfield, CA
93308, 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., September 15, 2009.
     Stallion Springs Community Center, 27850 Stallion Springs
Drive, Tehachapi, CA 93561, 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., September 16, 2009.
     Chimbole Cultural Center, 38350 Sierra Highway, Palmdale,
CA 93550, 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., September 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., (Mail Stop 20),
Washington, DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Ms. Carrie Bowen,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> at the above noted address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority was established in 1996 and is
authorized and directed by statue to undertake the planning and
development of a proposed statewide HST network that is fully
coordinated with other public transportation services. The Authority
adopted a Final Business Plan in June 2000, which reviewed the economic
feasibility of an 800-mile-long HST capable of speeds in excess of 200
miles per hour on a mostly dedicated, fully grade-separated state-of-
the-art track. The Authority released an updated Business Plan in
November 2008.
    The FRA has responsibility for overseeing the safety of railroad
operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed ground
transportation system. For the proposed HST, it is anticipated that FRA
would need to take certain regulatory actions prior to operation.
    In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed the Statewide Program EIR/
EIS for the Proposed California High Speed Train System, as the first
phase of a tiered environmental review process. The Authority certified
the Statewide Program EIR under CEQA and approved the proposed HST
System. FRA issued a Record of Decision on the Statewide Program EIR/
EIS as required under NEPA. The Statewide Program EIR/EIS established
the purpose and need for the HST system, analyzed an HST system, and
compared the proposed HST system with a No Project/No Action
Alternative and a Modal Alternative. In approving the Statewide Program
EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the HST Alternative, selected
certain corridors/general alignments and general station locations for
further study, incorporated mitigation strategies and design practices,
and specified further measures to guide the development of the HST
system during the site-specific, project level environmental review to
avoid and minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. In the
Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the State
Route 58/14 corridor for the Palmdale to Bakersfield section of the
HST.
    The Palmdale to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will tier from the
Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Final Bay Area to Central Valley HST
Program EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and State CEQA Guidelines (14
C.C.R. 15168(b)). Tiering ensures that the Palmdale to Bakersfield HST
Project EIR/EIS builds upon all previous work prepared for, and
incorporated in, the Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Bay Area to
Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS.

    The Palmdale to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will describe site-
specific environmental impacts, identify specific mitigation measures
to address those impacts, and incorporate design practices to avoid and
minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. The FRA and the
Authority will assess the site characteristics, size, nature, and
timing of proposed site-specific projects to determine whether the
impacts are potentially significant and whether impacts can be avoided
or mitigated. This project EIR/EIS will identify and evaluate
reasonable and feasible site-specific alignment alternatives, and
evaluate the impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of the
HST system. Information and documents regarding this HST environmental
review process will be made available through the Authority's Internet
site: http://www.cahighspeedrail.gov/.
    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed HST system is to
provide a new mode of high-speed intercity travel that would link major
metropolitan areas of the state; interface with airports, mass transit,
and highways; and provide added capacity to meet increased intercity
travel demand in California in a manner sensitive to and protective of
California's unique natural resources. The need for a HST system is
directly related to the expected growth in population, and increases in
intercity travel demand in California over the next twenty years and
beyond. With the growth in travel demand, there will be an increase in
travel delays arising from the growing congestion on California's
highways and airports. In addition, there will be negative effects on
the economy, quality of life, and air quality in and around
California's metropolitan areas from an increasingly congested
transportation system that will become less reliable as travel demand
increases. The intercity highway system, commercial airports, and
conventional passenger rail serving the intercity travel market are
currently operating at or near capacity, and will require large public
investments for maintenance and expansion to meet existing demand and
future growth. The proposed HST system is designed to address some
social, economic and environmental problems associated with
transportation congestion in California.
    Alternatives: The Palmdale to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will
consider a No Action or No Project Alternative and an HST Alternative
for the Palmdale to Bakersfield section.
    No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative (No Project or No
Build) represents the conditions in the corridor as it existed in 2007,
and as it would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to
the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable
projects through 2035, taking into account the following sources of
information: The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and
Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport
plans, intercity passenger rail plans, city and county plans.
    HST Alternative: The Authority proposes to construct, operate and
maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system,
about 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 mph on mostly
dedicated, fully graded-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety,
signaling, and automated train control systems. In the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the State Route 58/14
corridor for the Palmdale to Bakersfield section of the HST.
Engineering studies undertaken as part of this EIR/EIS process will
examine and refine alignments in the State Route 58/14 corridor. The
entire alignment would be grade separated. The options to be considered
for the design of grade separated roadway crossings would include (1)
Depressing the street to pass under the rail line; (2) elevating the
street to pass over the rail line; and (3) leaving the street as-is and
constructing rail line improvements to pass over or under the local
street. In addition, alternative sites for right-of-way maintenance,
train storage facilities and a heavy maintenance and repair facility
will be evaluated in the Palmdale to Bakersfield HST project area.
    No station would be included in this section as this project
connects the HST line in the Central Valley with the HST line from Los
Angeles and stations are being evaluated as part of the project EIR/
EISs associated with those HST sections. A station at the Palmdale
Airport/Transportation Center is being evaluated in the Los Angeles to
Palmdale HST Project EIR/EIS. The Truxtun station option in downtown
Bakersfield at the other end of this section is being evaluated in the
Bakersfield to Merced HST Project EIR/EIS. These station locations were
selected by the Authority and FRA in the Program EIR/EIS documents
after considering the project purpose and need, and the program
objectives.
    Probable Effects: The purpose of the EIR/EIS process is to explore,
in a public setting, the effects of the proposed project on the
physical, human, and natural environment. The FRA and Authority will
continue the tiered evaluation of all significant environmental,
social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the
HST system. Impact areas to be addressed include transportation
impacts; safety and security; land use and zoning; land acquisition,
displacements, and relocations and cumulative and secondary impacts;
agricultural land impacts; cultural resources impacts, including
impacts on historical and archaeological resources and parklands/
recreation areas; neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice;
natural resource impacts including air quality, wetlands, water
resources, noise, vibration, energy, wildlife and ecosystems, including
endangered species. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse
impacts will be identified and evaluated.
    The Palmdale to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will be prepared in
accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts
(64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)) and will address, as necessary, other
applicable statutes, regulations, and executive orders, including the
Clean Air Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.
    This EIR/EIS process will also continue the NEPA/Clean Water Act
Section 404 integration process established through the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS process. The EIR/EIS will evaluate project alignment
alternatives and station and maintenance facility locations to support
a determination of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Scoping and Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS
process during scoping and review of the resulting environmental
documents. Comments are invited from all interested agencies and the
public to ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed
action and reasonable alternatives are addressed and all significant
issues are identified. In particular, FRA is interested in hearing from
communities whether there are areas of environmental concern where
there might be a potential for significant site-specific impacts from
the high-speed transportation projects in the Palmdale to Bakersfield
section. Public agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA
and the Authority of the applicable permit and environmental review
requirements of each agency,

and the scope and content of the environmental information germane to
the agency's statutory responsibilities relevant to the proposed
project. Public agencies are requested to advise FRA if they anticipate
taking a major action in connection with the proposed project and if
they wish to cooperate in the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS.
Public scoping meetings have been scheduled and are an important
component of the scoping process for both the State and Federal
environmental review. The scoping meetings described in this Notice
will also be the subject of additional public notification.
    FRA is seeking participation and input of all interested federal,
state, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned
private organizations or individuals on the scope of the EIR/EIS.
Implementation of the Palmdale to Bakersfield section of the HST system
is a federal undertaking with the potential to affect historic
properties. As such, it is subject to the requirements of Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In
accordance with regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 36 CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate compliance
with Section 106 of this Act with the preparation of the EIR/EIS,
beginning with the identification of consulting parties through the
scoping process, in a manner consistent with the standards set out in
36 CFR 800.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 28, 2009.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-21381 Filed 9-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3587-3590]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1009]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0031; FRL-9255-2]
RIN 2060-AQ46

Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired, Electric Utility,
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional Steam Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the new source performance standards
for electric utility steam generating units and industrial-commercial-
institutional steam generating units. This action would amend the
testing requirements for owners/operators of steam generating units
that elect to install particulate matter continuous emission monitoring
systems. It would also amend the opacity monitoring requirements for
owners/operators of affected facilities subject to an opacity standard
that are exempt from the requirement to install a continuous opacity
monitoring system. In addition, this action would correct several
editorial errors identified from previous rulemakings.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 22,
2011, unless a public hearing is requested by January 31, 2011. If a
timely hearing request is submitted, the public hearing will be held on
February 4, 2011 and we must receive written comments on or before
March 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0031, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during the
Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a
total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0031. 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, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is requested, it will be held
at 10 a.m. at the EPA Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby. Contact Mr. Christian Fellner
at<PHONE_NUMBER> to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public
hearing, to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the
hearing location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy
Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAX number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic mail (e-mail) address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Where can I get a copy of this document?
IV. Why are we amending the rule?
V. What amendments are we making to the rule?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
we have also published for the new source performance standards for
electric utility steam generating units and industrial-commercial-
institutional steam generating units a direct final action amending the
rule with the identical regulatory language proposed by this action
because we view these amendments as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this
action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment by February 22, 2011, we will not
take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse
comment, we will withdraw the amendments in the direct final rule or
certain amendments in the direct final rule and those amendments will
not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
proposed rule include, but are not limited to, the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                           NAICS \1\                 Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................  221112.....................  Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam
                                                                        generating units.
Federal Government......................  22112......................  Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam
                                                                        generating units owned by the Federal
                                                                        Government.
State/local/tribal government...........  22112......................  Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam
                                                                        generating units owned by
                                                                        municipalities.
                                          921150.....................  Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam
                                                                        generating units located in Indian
                                                                        Country.
Any industrial, commercial, or            211........................  Extractors of crude petroleum and natural
 institutional facility using a steam                                   gas.
 generating unit as defined in 60.40b or
 60.40c.
                                          321........................  Manufacturers of lumber and wood
                                                                        products.
                                          322........................  Pulp and paper mills.
                                          325........................  Chemical manufacturers.
                                          324........................  Petroleum refiners and manufacturers of
                                                                        coal products.
                                          316, 326, 339..............  Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous
                                                                        plastic products.
                                          331........................  Steel works, blast furnaces.
                                          332........................  Electroplating, plating, polishing,
                                                                        anodizing, and coloring.
                                          336........................  Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and
                                                                        accessories.
                                          221........................  Electric, gas, and sanitary services.
                                          622........................  Health services.
                                          611........................  Educational Services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this
proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.
60.40, Sec.  60.40Da, Sec.  60.40b, or Sec.  60.40c of 40 CFR part 60.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed
rule to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

III. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed
action will be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

IV. Why are we amending the rule?

    On January 28, 2009, EPA promulgated amendments to the performance
standards for steam generating units to add compliance, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for owners and operators of certain affected
facilities. Subsequently, EPA received a petition for reconsideration
which it granted. The petitioner that submitted the petition for
reconsideration also filed a petition for review with the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In this action,
EPA is proposing to amend specific provisions in the performance
standards for steam generating units to resolve specific issues and
questions raised in the petition for review, but not in the petition
for reconsideration, and to address one issue raised in the petition
for reconsideration.

V. What amendments are we making to the rule?

    For a detailed description of the proposed amendments, see the
information provided in the direct final rule published in the Rules
and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is,
therefore, exempt from review under the 12866. EPA has concluded that
the amendments EPA is proposing would not change the costs or benefits
of this proposed rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action would not impose any new information collection burden.
These proposed amendments would result in no changes to the information
collection requirements of the existing standards of performance and
would have no impact on the information collection estimate of
projected cost and hour burden made and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) during the development of the existing
standards of performance. Therefore, the information collection
requests would not been amended. However, OMB has previously approved
the information collection requirements contained in the existing
standards of performance (40 CFR part 60, subparts D, Da, Db, and Dc)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., at the time the standards were promulgated on June 11, 1979 (40
CFR part 60, subpart Da, 44 FR 33580), November 25, 1986 (40 CFR part
60, subpart Db, 51 FR 42768), and September 12, 1990 (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Dc, 55 FR 37674). OMB assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0023
(ICR 1053.07) for 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da, 2060-0072 (ICR 1088.10)
for 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, 2060-0202 (ICR 1564.06) for 40 CFR part
60, subpart Dc. OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are
listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of these proposed amendments
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This proposed rule would reduce testing requirements for owner/
operators of affected facilities using PM CEMS and would allow reduced
opacity monitoring for owner/operators of natural gas-fired affected
facilities. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will
relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates 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.
Thus, the proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of
section 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This proposed 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 because the
burden is small and the regulation does not unfairly apply to small
governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. It
would 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. These amendments
would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local
governments, and they would not preempt State law. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    These proposed amendments do not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
These proposed amendments would not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to the proposed amendments.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health and safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs us to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve any new technical standards or the
incorporation by reference of existing technical standards. Therefore,
the consideration of voluntary consensus standards is not relevant to
this action.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed rulemaking. New source performance standards
are technology-based standards intended to promote use of the best air
pollution control technologies, taking into account the cost of such
technology and any other non-air quality, health, and environmental
impact and energy requirements at a broad national level.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 7, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-1009 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


~ ~

09/ 25/ 2001 1 3 ~ 4 9 FAX 2024011080 L m 4 __ rm~

OSDBLT 05 e UNIIED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D. C. 20460 SEP 2 5 2000 MEMOICANbUM d Insular Area Recipients  0  Grants Administration Division TO: MB'IYWBE Coordinators Regions I  X, Headquarters and Cincinaati Grants Management Oficers OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR Attached are new grant conditions for all grants to Indian Tribes and Insular Area ( Trust Territories and the Conunonwealth ofPuerto Rico) recipients. The grant condilions are to b~ used for financial assislance awards made to these recipients on or after October 1, 2000

Attachment CC: Senior Resource Officials Junior Resource Officials    ~ ~ ~ ~ II_ ~~

os @ lo8 09/ 25/ 2001 13: 49 FAX 2024011080 ,

%

Grant Conditions for Indian Tribes and Insular Area Recipients Required Steps, Docurnentation and Reporting \ ative steps stated in 40 CFR 31  36( e), to require it5 prime contractor to bcontracts; the recipient also The six affirmative steps contained in 40 CFR 31.36( e) are as follows:

Placing qualifying small and minority businesses and women's business enterprises and women's business enterprises on solicitation lists;

Assuring that sinal1 and minority businesses, and women business enterprises are solicited whenever they are potential sources;

Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by small aiid minority business, and women business enterprises;

Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage participation by small and minority business, and women's business enterprises;

Using the services and assistance of the Small Business Administration, and the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce; and Requiring the prime contractor, if subcontracts are to be let, to take the affirmative steps listed in I . Ji v above]."

The recipient agrees to submit an EPA Form 5700 S2A, " MBE/ WBE Utilization Under Federal Grants, Cooperative Agreements and Interagency Agreements" beginning with the Federal fiscal year quarter the recipient receives the award and continuing until the project i s completed. These reports must be submitted to \ ~~ ~ ~ ~~

~ _ _ _  _ ~ ~

09/ 25/ 2001 13349 FAX 2024011080 OSDBU 07 d r v q *

, anal MBElWBE Coordinator, Grants of the end of the Federal fiscal quarter er 30). For assistance recipient agrees to s October 30 each In accordance with Section 129 of Public Law 100 590, the Small Business Administration and Reauthorization and Amendmeiit Act of 1988, the recipient agrces to utilize and io e t to utilize sma exteqt possible ihrough age any prime contractors U T K h the assistance nesses located in rural areas to the maximum of the six affirmative steps.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17725-17727]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06608]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69162; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Mini Options

March 18, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 18, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to address the manner in which options
contracts overlying 10 shares of a security (``Mini Options'') will
trade as a Complex Order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080,
Commentary .08(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide for the
manner in which Mini Options will trade as a Complex Order pursuant to
Exchange Rule 1080. The Exchange previously filed to list and trade
Mini Options.\4\ Exchange Rule 1080 entitled ``Phlx XL and Phlx XL II''
describes the manner in which Complex Orders,\5\ trade on the Exchange.
The Exchange will describe below the manner in which Rule 1080 operates
with respect to Mini Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68132 (November 1,
2012), 77 FR 66904 (November 7, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-126). The
Exchange amended amend Rules 1001 (Position Limits), 1012 (Series of
Options Open for Trading) and 1033 (Bids and Offers--Premium) to
list and trade Mini Options overlying five (5) high-priced
securities for which the standard contract overlying the same
security exhibits significant liquidity. Specifically, the Exchange
filed to list Mini Options on SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY''), Apple, Inc.
(``AAPL''), SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''), Google Inc. (``GOOG'') and
Amazon.com Inc. (``AMZN''). The Exchange filed a separate proposal
to specify the application of Mini Options to Qualified Contingent
Cross and PIXL transactions. See SR-Phlx-2013-32 (not yet
published).
    \5\ See Commentary .08 to Exchange Rule 1080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Complex Orders, the Exchange states in Rule 1080
that Complex Orders involve the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of
two or more different options series in the same underlying security,
priced as a net debit or credit based on relative prices of the
individual components. The Exchange would permit Mini Options to trade
as Complex Orders provided that the order involves the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different Mini Options series in
the same underlying security, priced as a net debit or credit based on
relative prices of the individual components and Mini Options are only
part of a Complex Order strategy that includes other Mini Options. For
example, a Complex Order strategy cannot be comprised of standard
options in AAPL and Mini Options in AAPL7. Also, with respect to
Complex Orders, the Exchange will not permit Mini Options to trade as a
stock-option order. The Exchange proposes to add rule text with respect
to Mini Options trading as Complex Orders to Commentary .08 of Rule
1080.
    The Exchange proposes to commence trading Mini Options on March 22,
2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act''),\6\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act,\7\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors and other market
participants would benefit from the current rule proposal because it
would allow market participants to take advantage of legitimate
investment strategies and execute Complex Orders in Mini Options.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will avoid
investor confusion by providing how Mini Options will trade the same or
different as compared to standard options with respect to Complex
Orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to permit Mini Options to trade as Complex
Orders provided the strategy does not combine Mini Options and standard
options serves to maintain the permissible ratios that are applicable
to Complex Orders by separating the trading of standard Complex Orders
and Mini Options Complex Orders. Also, the Exchange has determined to
not permit Mini Option Complex Orders to trade as a stock-option order
because as Mini Options are a new product, the Exchange would like to
consider the impact in this area and file to amend the rule at a later
date.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All members may transact
Complex Orders on Phlx. The rule change does not permit unfair
discrimination and does not impose a burden on Members with respect to
trading Mini Options.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act \10\
normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of
the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act,\11\
the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has requested the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. In November 2012, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
amend its rules to list and trade certain mini-options contracts on the
Exchange, and represented in that filing that the Exchange's rules that
apply to the trading of standard options contracts would apply to mini-
options contracts.\12\ The Exchange has represented that it intends to
launch trading in mini-options contracts on March 22, 2013. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the 30-day operative

delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because such waiver would minimize confusion among market
participants about how complex orders and stock-options orders
involving mini-options contracts will trade.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68132 (November 1,
2012), 77 FR 66904 (November 7, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-126).
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Such waiver would allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule
change prior to its launch of mini-options contracts trading on March
22, 2013, thereby mitigating potential investor confusion as to how
complex orders and stock options orders involving mini-options
contracts will trade. For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-34. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-34, and should be submitted on or before April
12, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06608 Filed 3-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7820-7821]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01419]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2017-0016; FRL 9958-74-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club
(``Plaintiffs'') in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia: Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Civil Action No. 1:16-cf-01895-
KBJ (D.D.C). On September 23, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint
alleging that the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'') failed to perform a non-discretionary duty
to grant or deny within 60 days a petition submitted by Plaintiffs on
April 11, 2016 requesting that EPA object to a CAA Title V permit
issued by the Utah Department of Air Quality, to PacifiCorp Energy,
authorizing the operation of the coal-fired Hunter Plant in Castle
Dale, Utah. The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for
EPA to take such action.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by February 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2017-0016, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method).
For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Krallman, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the
Plaintiffs seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under
CAA section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree,
EPA would agree to sign its response granting or denying the petition
filed by Plaintiffs regarding PacifiCorp Energy's Hunter Plant located
in Castle Dale, Utah, pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA, on or
before August 31, 2017.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would
expeditiously deliver notice of EPA's response to the Office of the
Federal Register for review and publication following signature of such
response. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the
settlement in regard to Petitioner's attorney fees.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2017-0016) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the
appropriate docket identification number then select ``search.''
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of
your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the
body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is
placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's
electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: January 6, 2017.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-01419 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72804]
[DOCID:fr07de05-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-107-000]

Chandeleur Pipe Line Company; Notice of Filing

November 29, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 22, 2005, Chandeleur Pipe Line Company
(Chandeleur) tendered for filing Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No.
1, a work paper supporting the continuation, effective January 1, 2006,
of its currently effective Fuel and Line Loss Allowance of 0.0%.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time December 6, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6949 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68420]
[DOCID:fr10no05-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-518-078]

Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

November 3, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2005, Gas Transmission Northwest
Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, to become
effective November 1, 2005:

Twenty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 15
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 17
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 24
Second Revised Sheet No. 27
First Revised Sheet No. 28

    GTN states that these sheets are being filed to update GTN's
reporting of negotiated rate transactions that it has entered into.
    GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on
GTN's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory
agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  154.210 of the
Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must
serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6214 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P