[Federal Register: December 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 74310]
[DOCID:fr15de05-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-19-000]

Illinois Municipal Electric Agency; Notice of Filing

December 7, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 8, 2005, Illinois Municipal Electric
Agency tendered for filing an initial Rate Schedule No. 1 and
supporting cost data to establish its annual revenue requirements for
providing Reactive Supply & Voltage Control from Generation Sources.
    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, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 on December 16, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7362 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21287-21288]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-783-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20180501 Winter PRA Fuel Rates
to be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5380.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-784-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TCO Virginia Power Negotiated
Rate Amendment to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5382.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-785-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: CNX Antero Amendment Filing to
be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5383.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-786-000.
    Applicants: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 5-1-18 to be
effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5394.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-787-000.
    Applicants: Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 5-1-18 to be
effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5397.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-788-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Triad Expansion
Project to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5400.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-789-000.
    Applicants: Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing CCPL Compliance Filing for Docket
No. CP12-508-000 to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5402.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-790-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--May
2018 Spire 1005896 to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5404.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-791-000.
    Applicants: Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: CCPL/CCL Negotiated Rate to be
effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-792-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20180502 Negotiated Rate to be
effective 5/2/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-793-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment Settlement Filing to
be effective 7/31/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/14/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern

time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 3, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09850 Filed 5-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 TXR NO. 0050322 December 6, 2001 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: LINURON: Report of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee.

FROM: Carol Christensen, Acting Executive Secretary FQPA Safety Factor Committee Health Effects Division (7509C)

THROUGH: Ed Zager, Chair FQPA Safety Factor Committee Health Effects Division (7509C)

TO: Carol Christensen, Risk Assessor Registration Action Branch 2 Health Effects Division (7509C)

PC Code: 035506 The Health Effects Division (HED) FQPA Safety Factor Committee met on November 26, 2001 to evaluate the hazard and exposure data for linuron and recommended that the FQPA safety factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of August 3, 1996) be retained when assessing the risks posed from the use of this pesticide.

I. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 2 (Correspondence: R. Fricke to C. Christensen, October 31, 2001)

1. Adequacy of Toxicity Database The toxicology data base for linuron is complete for FQPA assessment. The toxicology data bases for linuron were reviewed by the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) on September 13 th and 27 th . Prenatal developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a two generation reproduction study are available with linuron.

2. Determination of Susceptibility There is no qualitative/ quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the rabbit developmental study; developmental effects were seen at a dose higher than that causing maternal toxicity. In the rat developmental study, increases in post implantation losses and increases in fetal resorptions/ litter were seen a dose that caused decreases in maternal body weight and food consumption. The HIARC determined that the developmental effects are not a concern for qualitative evidence of susceptibility, since increases in resorptions were marginal and there was no change in the number of live fetuses to corroborate the increases in post implantation losses.

There was no quantitative evidence of susceptibility either in the 2 generation or the 3 generation reproduction studies. In the 2 generation study, reduced body weight gains of pups were seen at the same dose that caused decreases in parental body weights. In the 3 generation study, offspring effects (deceased pup survival and pup body weight) were seen a dose higher than the dose that caused decreases in body weight gain in the parental animals.

In both the 2 generation and the 3 generation rat reproductive toxicity studies, testicular atrophy was seen at the same dose that caused parental/ systemic toxicity. However, the HIARC determined that these lesions were of a concern and provide qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility because in both studies they were seen in the F1 males but not in F0 males. This indicates an adverse effect on the male reproductive system of the F1 generation.

3. Requirement of a Developmental Neurotoxicity Study The HIARC concluded that a development neurotoxicity study in the rat is required by the available evidence. This conclusion is based on the findings that linuron is a potential endocrine disruptor, as evidenced by the observation of increased testicular lesions and decreased fertility in the reproduction studies.

II. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION 3 1. Dietary (Food) Exposure Considerations (Correspondence: J. Punzi to C. Christensen, November 15, 2001)

Linuron is registered for pre plant and postemergent use on the following crops: asparagus, carrots, celery, corn (field & sweet), cotton, parsley, potato, sorghum, soybean, and wheat. The rates of application range from 0.5 4 lb ai/ A/ yr and may be applied 1 or 2 times per year. Linuron is mainly early season but a few crops have short PHI's (notably asparagus (1 day) and carrot (14 day)). There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRL's for this chemical.

Due to the data collection methods, linuron and metabolites convertible to 3,4 dichloroanaline require regulation. Residues of linuron are systemic, however, washing will remove some of the residue in some instances. Linuron residues are persistent.

Monitoring data are available for this chemical, however, both PDP and FDA look for the parent only. In PDP data detection rates for carrots are about 35 % and residues frequently found at 0.2 and 0.3 ppm. Field trial residue data corrected for percent of crop treated will be used to estimate exposure. Residue reduction studies are available for asparagus (washing, boiling) and carrot and potato (cooking) and will be used to assess the dietary exposure for linuron.

Carrots, meats, and milk will contribute significantly to the diet. Feeding studies indicate tolerances are needed for meats and milk, linuron is registered on many feed crops. The dietary exposure assessment is considered Tier 3. It will include field trial data corrected for percent of crop treated and the translation of cooking studies to various foods.

The Committee recognizes that further refinement to the dietary food exposure analyses may be required as the risk assessment is developed. Therefore, provided the final dietary food exposure assessment includes the metabolites of regulatory concern and does not underestimate the potential risk for infants and children, the safety factor recommendations of this Committee stand.

2. Dietary (Drinking Water) Exposure Considerations (Correspondence: I. Abdel Saheb to C. Christensen, dated November 20, 2001)

The environmental fate data base for parent linuron is complete for FQPA assessment. Parent linuron appears to be moderately persistent and relatively immobile. Information on the persistence, mobility and dissipation pathways of several degradates of linuron is limited. However, EFED believes that there is no reason to believe that the EECs produced for the drinking water for linuron will underestimate the risk from its major degradates. Estimate are conservative because the metabolites are formed under aerobic soil metabolism conditions at low percentages and, therefore, no significant changes to the parent water numbers would result due to degradation. 4 A combination of modeling and monitoring data were used in the assessment. The Tier II screening models PRZM EXAMS with the Index Reservoir and Percent Crop Area adjustment (IR PCA PRZM/ EXAMS) were used to determine estimated surface water concentrations of linuron. The Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI GROW) model was used to estimate groundwater concentrations for linuron. However, because SCI GROW estimated concentrations of linuron were less than those from monitoring data, EFED recommends using monitoring results in the groundwater drinking water assessment.

The FQPA Safety Factor Committee recognizes that further refinement to the dietary water exposure analyses may be required as the risk assessment is developed. Therefore, provided the final dietary water exposure assessment adequately assesses for metabolites of concern in drinking water and does not underestimate the potential risk for infants and children, the safety factor recommendations of this Committee stand.

3. Residential Exposure Considerations There are no registered residential uses of linuron. 5 III. SAFETY FACTOR RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE 1. FQPA Safety Factor Recommendation The Committee recommended that the FQPA safety factor for protection of infants and children (as required by FQPA) should be retained.

2. Rationale for Requiring the FQPA Safety Factor The FQPA SFC concluded that a safety factor is required because:

1. A qualitative increase in susceptibility seen in the F1 males in the rat reproductive toxicity study; and 2. A developmental neurotoxicity study in rats is required for the chemical because linuron is a potential endocrine disruptor and there is evidence for testicular lesions and decreased fertility in the rat reproductive toxicity study.

However, the Committee concluded that the safety factor could be reduced to 3x for linuron because:

1. The toxicology database is complete; 2. The dietary (food and water) exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential exposures for infants, children, and/ or women of childbearing age; and, 3. There are no residential uses.

3. Application of the Safety Factor  Population Subgroups / Risk Assessment Scenarios Females 13 50 Population Subgroup: When assessing Acute Dietary exposure, the safety factor should be reduced to 3x since the developmental neurotoxicity study in rats is required. The developmental neurotoxicity study may further define the neurotoxic (neuro endocrine) potential observed in rats that were exposed in pre and post natal time periods.

All Population Subgroups: When assessing Chronic Dietary, the safety factor should be Retained at 10x since there is concern for the qualitative increase in susceptibility observed in the rat reproductive toxicity study, and, since the developmental neurotoxicity study in rats is required. The developmental neurotoxicity study may further define the neurotoxic (neuro endocrine) potential observed in rats due to pre and post natal exposure.


########################################################################################
## Created by: George Gardner, ICF
## Date Created: 10/18/22
## Date Edited: 10/27/22
## Check U.S. county settings output, household output, and SEDAC population projection
## merging. Then outputs the input files necessary for the 100-mile radius
## county-level WTP runs.

########################################################################################
rm(list = ls(all = TRUE)) #first, clear R's workspace

library(readxl)
library(openxlsx)
library(dplyr)

setwd('C:/Users/55338/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/Wetland Meta-Analysis/Wetland MRM - R Code/')

# SEDAC path
SEDAC_path <- "C:/Users/55338/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/National Analysis/Population Projections/SEDAC/SEDAC_georeferenced_county_population_proj_excel files"

options(stringsAsFactors=FALSE)
pacman::p_load(dplyr, tidycensus, readxl, tidyverse, labelled, units)

## STEP 1: read in data.

# read in population data
pop_data <- read_xlsx("./data/WOTUS_100milebuffer_HouseholdWTP_6-15-22.xlsx")

# read in U.S. county settings data
# for 100-mile buffer
#county_data <- read_xlsx("./data/WOTUS_Buffer_WetlandAnalysis_10-12-22.xlsx")
county_data <- read_xlsx("./data/WOTUS_Buffer_WetlandAnalysis_10-27-22.xlsx")
county_data <- county_data[, c(1:3, 5:8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45)]

# read in SEDAC data
SEDAC_pop <- read_xlsx(paste0(SEDAC_path, "/hauer_county_totpop_SSPs.xlsx"))
names(SEDAC_pop)[names(SEDAC_pop)=="GEOID10"] <- "GEOID"

## STEP 2: convert HH income from 2019$ to 2021$ using BEA GDP deflator.
GDP <- read.csv("C:/Users/55338/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/Wetland Meta-Analysis/Meta-data/Metadata Data Extraction - March 2022/BEA_GDP_Deflator_Feb2022.csv")
conv <- GDP$Gross.domestic.product[32]/GDP$Gross.domestic.product[30]

county_data$`ln(Median Income)` <- log(exp(county_data$`ln(Median Income)`) * conv)

## STEP 3: check for, and potentially fill in, missing values. Remove counties
## with no impacts or no local wetlands.

# 0 missing values when merging population data to county data
test <- left_join(county_data, pop_data)
missing<-test[is.na(test$PersonsPerHH),]

# only missing GEOID 46102, Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota (row = 2,389).
test2 <- left_join(test, SEDAC_pop)
missing2<-test2[is.na(test2$ssp12020),]

# fill in missing population projections using an average from surrounding counties.
# surrounding counties are GEOIDs: 31031, 46103, 31161, 46071, 46047, 46033, 31045, and 46007.
temp <- subset(test2, test2$GEOID == "31031" | test2$GEOID == "46103" | test2$GEOID == "31161" | test2$GEOID == "46071" |
                 test2$GEOID == "46047" | test2$GEOID == "46033" | test2$GEOID == "31045" | test2$GEOID == "46007")

temp <- temp[,c(41, 46, 51, 56, 61, 66)]

mean_20 <- mean(temp$ssp22020)
mean_25 <- mean(temp$ssp22025)
mean_30 <- mean(temp$ssp22030)
mean_35 <- mean(temp$ssp22035)
mean_40 <- mean(temp$ssp22040)
mean_45 <- mean(temp$ssp22045)

rm(temp)

test2[2389,41] <- mean_20
test2[2389,46] <- mean_25
test2[2389,51] <- mean_30
test2[2389,56] <- mean_35
test2[2389,61] <- mean_40
test2[2389,66] <- mean_45

# Need to remove counties where NWPR and Rapanos permanent impacts are identical.
# From 3,067 to 3,062 obs.

test2 <- subset(test2, test2$impacts.NWPR.perm_100 !=test2$impacts.Rapanos.perm_100)

# remove GEOID 50011 since Prop.Forested_30 = NA.
test2 <- subset(test2, test2$GEOID != 50011)

# need to reassign proportion variables that are equal to 0 to an arbitrarily small number
# or proportion variables that are equal to 1 to an arbitrarily large number
# to run the benefit transfer code.
test2 <- test2 %>%
  mutate(Prop.Forested_100 = ifelse(Prop.Forested_100 == 0,0.0001,Prop.Forested_100)) %>%
  mutate(Prop.Forested_100 = ifelse(Prop.Forested_100 == 1,0.9999,Prop.Forested_100)) %>%
  mutate(Prop.Forested_30 = ifelse(Prop.Forested_30 == 0,0.0001,Prop.Forested_30)) %>%
  mutate(Prop.Forested_30 = ifelse(Prop.Forested_30 == 1,0.9999,Prop.Forested_30)) %>%
  mutate(Prop.local_100 = ifelse(Prop.local_100 == 0, 0.0001,Prop.local_100)) %>%
  mutate(Prop.local_100 = ifelse(Prop.local_100 == 1, 0.9999,Prop.local_100)) %>%
  mutate(NWPR.perm.Prop.local_100 = ifelse(NWPR.perm.Prop.local_100 == 0, 0.0001, NWPR.perm.Prop.local_100)) %>%
  mutate(NWPR.perm.Prop.local_100 = ifelse(NWPR.perm.Prop.local_100 == 1, 0.9999, NWPR.perm.Prop.local_100)) %>%
  mutate(Rapanos.perm.Prop.local_100 = ifelse(Rapanos.perm.Prop.local_100 == 0, 0.0001, Rapanos.perm.Prop.local_100)) %>%
  mutate(Rapanos.perm.Prop.local_100 = ifelse(Rapanos.perm.Prop.local_100 == 1, 0.9999, Rapanos.perm.Prop.local_100))

## STEP 4: output U.S. county data and SEDAC projections

# output the U.S. county data once more.
county_data2 <- test2[, c(4:19,1,2)]

#save(county_data2, file = "./data/county_data_100m_10-18-22.rda")
#openxlsx::write.xlsx(county_data2, file = './data/county_data_100m_10-18-22.xlsx')
save(county_data2, file = "./data/county_data_100m_10-27-22.rda")
openxlsx::write.xlsx(county_data2, file = './data/county_data_100m_10-27-22.xlsx')

# output SEDAC projections
# Create the matrix for HH data projections using SEDAC SSP2.

HHpop <- matrix(0,nrow(test2),ncol=26) # later remove first and last 3 columns. only added for extrap.
colnames(HHpop) <- c("2020", "2021","2022","2023", "2024","2025","2026","2027","2028", "2029","2030","2031","2032","2033","2034","2035","2036",
                     "2037", "2038","2039","2040","2041","2042","2043","2044","2045")

HHpop[,1] <- test2$ssp22020 # extract SSP2 in year 2020
HHpop[,6] <- test2$ssp22025 # extract SSP2 in year 2025
HHpop[,11] <- test2$ssp22030 # extract SSP2 in year 2030
HHpop[,16] <- test2$ssp22035 # extract SSP2 in year 2035
HHpop[,21] <- test2$ssp22040 # extract SSP2 in year 2040
HHpop[,26] <- test2$ssp22045 # extract SSP2 in year 2045

# need to fill in blanks using linear extrapolation. Take the difference between the
# years and divide by 5 (since estimates are every 5 years). Then add this for each year.

diff_20_25 <- (test2$ssp22025 - test2$ssp22020)/5
diff_25_30 <- (test2$ssp22030 - test2$ssp22025)/5
diff_30_35 <- (test2$ssp22035 - test2$ssp22030)/5
diff_35_40 <- (test2$ssp22040 - test2$ssp22035)/5
diff_40_45 <- (test2$ssp22045 - test2$ssp22040)/5

# start to fill in matrix.
for (i in 1:4) {
  HHpop[,i+1] <- test2$ssp22020 + diff_20_25*i
}

for (i in 1:4) {
  HHpop[,i+6] <- test2$ssp22025 + diff_25_30*i
}

for (i in 1:4) {
  HHpop[,i+11] <- test2$ssp22030 + diff_30_35*i
}

for (i in 1:4) {
  HHpop[,i+16] <- test2$ssp22035 + diff_35_40*i
}

for (i in 1:4) {
  HHpop[,i+21] <- test2$ssp22040 + diff_40_45*i
}

HHpop <- HHpop[, c(4:23)]

# now divide by the number of persons per household to get HH projections
HHpop <- HHpop/test2$PersonsPerHH
# lastly, for counties which were split into two parts, split the HH projections
# in half.
temp <- test2[, c(1,2)]
temp$TAG <- 0
temp$TAG <- ifelse(temp$GEOID == "04001" | temp$GEOID == "04005" | temp$GEOID == "04013" | temp$GEOID == "04015" |
                     temp$GEOID == "04017" | temp$GEOID == "06027" | temp$GEOID == "06037" | temp$GEOID == "06071" |
                     temp$GEOID == "32007" | temp$GEOID == "32023" | temp$GEOID == "32031", 1, 0)

HHpop <- cbind(HHpop, temp)

HHpop$`2023` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2023`/2,HHpop$`2023`)
HHpop$`2024` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2024`/2,HHpop$`2024`)
HHpop$`2025` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2025`/2,HHpop$`2025`)
HHpop$`2026` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2026`/2,HHpop$`2026`)
HHpop$`2027` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2027`/2,HHpop$`2027`)
HHpop$`2028` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2028`/2,HHpop$`2028`)
HHpop$`2029` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2029`/2,HHpop$`2029`)
HHpop$`2030` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2030`/2,HHpop$`2030`)
HHpop$`2031` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2031`/2,HHpop$`2031`)
HHpop$`2032` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2032`/2,HHpop$`2032`)
HHpop$`2033` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2033`/2,HHpop$`2033`)
HHpop$`2034` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2034`/2,HHpop$`2034`)
HHpop$`2035` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2035`/2,HHpop$`2035`)
HHpop$`2036` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2036`/2,HHpop$`2036`)
HHpop$`2037` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2037`/2,HHpop$`2037`)
HHpop$`2038` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2038`/2,HHpop$`2038`)
HHpop$`2039` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2039`/2,HHpop$`2039`)
HHpop$`2040` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2040`/2,HHpop$`2040`)
HHpop$`2041` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2041`/2,HHpop$`2041`)
HHpop$`2042` <- ifelse(HHpop$TAG == 1, HHpop$`2042`/2,HHpop$`2042`)

rm(temp)
# to include for table building in reports
county_names <- test2[,c(1, 20, 27)]

names(county_names)[names(county_names)=="NAMELSAD10"] <- "County"

#openxlsx::write.xlsx(county_names, file = './data/county_names_100m_10-18-22.xlsx')
#save(county_names, file = "./data/county_names_100m_10-18-22.rda")
openxlsx::write.xlsx(county_names, file = './data/county_names_100m_10-27-22.xlsx')
save(county_names, file = "./data/county_names_100m_10-27-22.rda")

# HH projections
HHpop <- HHpop[,c(1:20)]
#openxlsx::write.xlsx(HHpop, file = './data/county_HHprojections_100m_10-18-22.xlsx')
#save(HHpop, file = "./data/county_HHprojections_100m_10-18-22.rda")
openxlsx::write.xlsx(HHpop, file = './data/county_HHprojections_100m_10-27-22.xlsx')
save(HHpop, file = "./data/county_HHprojections_100m_10-27-22.rda")


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14400-14401]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0938; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Dewitt, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for Dewitt Municipal Airport/Whitcomb Field,
Dewitt, AR to accommodate area navigation (RNAV) global positioning
system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving
this airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 19, 2022. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace for Dewitt Municipal Airport/
Whitcomb Field, Dewitt, AR to support IFR operations in the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 60784, November 4, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0938
to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface for Dewitt Municipal Airport/Whitcomb Field, Dewitt, AR.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO

7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic
routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile
radius of Dewitt Municipal Airport/Whitcomb Field, Dewitt, AR,
providing the controlled airspace required to support RNAV (GPS)
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this
airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures an air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW AR E5 Dewitt, AR [New]

Dewitt Municipal Airport/Whitcomb Field, AR
    (Lat. 34[deg]15'44'W'' N, long. 91[deg]18'27'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Dewitt Municipal Airport/Whitcomb Field.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 10, 2022.
Matthew N. Cathcart,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, AJV-E2.
[FR Doc. 2022-05394 Filed 3-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

This comment period appears to be our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback. The Proposed Deeming Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Deeming Rule. There a several questions that I will want to comment on in the proposed deeming rule.  As a working consumer I have limited time to available to research the items I have questions abotu so that my comments are relevant to this decision.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I firmly believe that they saved my life and  I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12362-12363]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1957-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New York; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-1957-DR), dated February 18,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 18, 2011, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows

    :I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New York resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm
during the period of December 26-27, 2010, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of New York.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are
further authorized to provide emergency protective measures,
including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for
any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident
period. You may extend the period of assistance, as warranted. This
assistance excludes regular time costs for the sub-grantees' regular
employees. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, John Long, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New York have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Nassau and Suffolk Counties for Public Assistance.
    Nassau, Rensselaer, and Richmond Counties for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including snow assistance, under
the Public Assistance for any continuous 48-hour period during or
proximate to the incident period.
    All counties within the State of New York are eligible to apply
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.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-5018 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30373-30375]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11408]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77797; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
11.13, Order Execution and Routing, To Delete References to the TRIM3
Routing Option

May 10, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 2, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BATS'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.13, Order Execution
and Routing, to delete references to the TRIM3 routing option. The
Exchange also proposes to amend its fee schedule to delete references
to the TRIM3 routing option under fee codes BY and TV.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.13, Order Execution and
Routing, to delete references to the TRIM3 routing option. The Exchange
also proposes to amend its fee schedule to delete references to the
TRIM3 routing option under fee codes BY and TV.
    Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(G) includes the TRIM3 routing option as
one of the routing options under which an order checks the System \5\
for available shares if so instructed by the entering User \6\ and then
is sent to destinations on the applicable System routing table. The
term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary process for
determining the specific trading venues to which the System routes
orders and the order in which it routes them.\7\ Orders routed pursuant
to the TRIM3 routing option are only sent to NASDAQ BX, BYX Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX''), and certain alternative trading systems available
through the Exchange's DRT routing option (``DRT Venues'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ``System'' is the Exchange's electronic communications
and trading facility designated by the Board through which
securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking, execution
and, when applicable, routing away. See Exchange Rule 1.5(aa).
    \6\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3). The Exchange reserves the
right to maintain a different System routing table for different
routing options and to modify the System routing table at any time
without notice. Id.
    \8\ DRT is a routing option in which the entering firm instructs
the System to route to alternative trading systems included in the
System routing table. Unless otherwise specified, DRT can be
combined with and function consistent with all other routing
options. See Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(D). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 66324 (February 6, 2012), 77 FR 7642
(February 13, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-007) (adopting the TRIM3 routing
option).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fee code BY is yielded on orders routed to BYX using Destination
Specific, TRIM, TRIM2, TRIM3 or SLIM routing strategy. Orders that
yield fee code BY receive a rebate of $0.0015 per share. Fee Code TV is
yielded on orders routed to NASDAQ BX LLC using TRIM, TRIM2 or TRIM3
routing strategy. Orders that yield fee code TV receive a rebate of
$0.0010 per share.
    Because few Users elect the TRIM3 routing option, the Exchange has
determined that the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure
and ongoing maintenance expenses required to support the product.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete reference to the TRIM3
routing option under Rule 11.13(b)(3)(G). The Exchange also proposes to
amend its fee schedule to delete references to the TRIM3 routing option
under fee codes BY and TV. Users seeking to route to BYX, NASDAQ BX, or
DRT venues may use alternative methods, such as connecting to those
exchanges directly or through a third party service provider, or
electing another routing option offered by the Exchange that enables a
User to post an order to certain primary listing markets.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Rule 11.13(b)(3)(E) (describing the Destination
Specific routing option under which an order checks the System for
available shares and then is sent to an away trading center or
centers specified by the User).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the deletion of the TRIM3 routing option, the
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.13(b)(3)(G) to update a
numerical reference to the SLIM routing option. Exchange Rule
11.13(b)(3)(G) currently states that in connection with SLIM routing
option, currently listed as subsection (vii) of the Rule, a User may
designate that an order first routes to BYX, checks the System for
available shares, and then routes to other destinations on the System
routing table. Upon deletion of the TRIM3 routing option, the SLIM
routing option will be renumbered as section (vi) and the Exchange
proposes to update Rule 11.13(b)(3)(G) accordingly.
    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed rule change on May
6, 2016.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Bats to Decommission ICMT, IOCM, and TRIM3 Routing
Strategies, issued April 18, 2016, available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/release_notes/2016/Bats-to-Decommission-ICMT-IOCM-and-TRIM3-Routing-Strategies.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposal will permit unfair
discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers because the TRIM3
routing option will no longer be available to all Users. The Exchange
has few Users electing the TRIM3 routing option and has determined that
the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing
maintenance expense required to support the product. Routing through
the Exchange is voluntary and alternative routing options offered by
the Exchange as well as other methods remain available to Users that
wish to route to BYX, NASDAQ BX, or DRT venues.\13\ In addition, the
TRIM3 routing option is not core product offering by the Exchange, nor
is the Exchange required by the Act to offer such product. Therefore,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would make its rules
clearer and less confusing for investors by removing a routing option
that will no longer be offered by the Exchange; thereby removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 9 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to
address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by
eliminating the TRIM3 routing option that is to be discontinued by the
Exchange.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the
Exchange to modify its rules in a timely manner by: (i) Eliminating a
rule that accounts for services with few subscribers that the Exchange
intends to discontinue; and (ii) accurately describing the alternative
routing options available to Users, thereby avoiding potential investor
confusion during the operative delay period. Based on the foregoing,
the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore,
the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ 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 the 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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-13, and should be
submitted on or before June 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-11408 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27981-27983]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 350

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0079]

State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles

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

ACTION: Request for comment on withdrawn advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA) was enacted, directing FMCSA to solicit additional comment
on the Agency's April 27, 2016 advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) concerning the potential establishment of requirements for
States to implement annual inspection programs for commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to transport passengers (passenger-
carrying CMVs).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2022-0079 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0079/document. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loretta Bitner, Chief, Passenger
Carrier Safety Division, Office of Safety, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
request for comment (FMCSA-2022-0079), indicate the specific section of
this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0079/document, click on this request for comment,
click ``Comment,'' and type your comment into the text box on the
following screen.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure.
If your comments contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to the request for comment, it is
important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI.
Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as
``PROPIN'' to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will
treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of
Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket.
Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief,
Regulatory Analysis Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any comments FMCSA receives not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0079/document and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this request for
comment, then click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to
the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To
be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy

    DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its
regulatory process, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c). DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL 14--Federal Docket Management System), which
can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 27, 2016, in accordance with section 32710 of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat.
405, 815), FMCSA published in the Federal Register, an ANPRM titled
``State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles'' (Docket
No. FMCSA-2014-0470, 81 FR 24769). The ANPRM

announced that FMCSA was considering a requirement that States
establish a program for annual inspections of passenger-carrying CMVs.
FMCSA requested information from all interested parties that would
enable the Agency to assess the risks associated with improperly
maintained or improperly inspected passenger-carrying CMVs. The ANPRM
also sought public comments concerning the effectiveness of the current
FMCSA annual inspection standards, and data on the potential costs and
benefits of a Federal requirement for each State to implement a
mandatory inspection program. FMCSA inquired about how the Agency might
incentivize States to adopt such programs.
    The comment period closed on June 27, 2016, and 22 comments were
received, with a plurality (10 of 22) of commenters expressing general
opposition to the mandatory State inspection requirement discussed in
the ANPRM. After reviewing all the public comments, FMCSA determined
there was not enough data and information available to support moving
forward with a rulemaking action. As a result, on May 1, 2017, the
Agency withdrew the ANPRM.\1\ (82 FR 20311)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ANPRM and the ANPRM withdrawal are available in the
docket for this request for comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2021, the IIJA was enacted, Public Law 117-58, 135
Stat. 429 (H.R. 3684, Nov. 15, 2021). Section 23008(a) directed the
Agency, within 1 year after the date of enactment, to solicit
additional comments on the ANPRM to determine if data and information
exist to support moving forward with a rulemaking.

III. Request for Public Comment

    As discussed above, FMCSA will use information gathered through
this request for comment to further consider the issues associated with
State inspections of passenger-carrying CMVs. Questions from the 2016
ANPRM are reprinted here to guide commenters in their responses.\2\ The
Agency encourages interested parties to provide information about the
impact that such a rulemaking would have on State agencies that would
be compelled to establish inspection programs, motor carriers' safety
performance, operating costs, business practices, and any other aspects
of transportation services provided by interstate passenger carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The questions reprinted here are identical to those in the
ANPRM with the exception of two locations where the term ``bus'' is
replaced with the more accurate term ``passenger-carrying CMV'' and
removal of question 40, which the Agency now deems irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA requests data on and responses to the following issues and
questions. The Agency also encourages commenters to describe any
applicable regulatory inspection process under which they operate.

Existing State Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs for Passenger-
Carrying CMVs

    1. Does your State or the States in which you register your
passenger-carrying CMV conduct mandatory inspections of such vehicles?
Please indicate the State(s) in which your passenger-carrying CMVs are
registered.
    2. What vehicle types are included in the mandatory passenger-
carrying CMV inspection program (e.g., motorcoaches, school buses,
mini-buses, 9- to 15-passenger vans, etc.) and which are not included?
    3. If your State has a mandatory program, briefly describe your
inspection procedures and indicate which vehicle components are
inspected.
    4. How many total inspections are performed by your State annually
for each of the following types of vehicles?

a. Motorcoaches
b. School buses
c. Mini-buses
d. 9- to 15-passenger vans
e. Other

    5. What is the estimated time required to complete each vehicle
inspection?
    6. What procedures are used to record the vehicle inspection?
    7. If a vehicle does not pass an inspection, who addresses the
issues? If it is done by someone other than the inspecting entity, is
there a second inspection after the issues are addressed? On average,
how many follow up inspections does it take to pass a vehicle?
    8. Are mandatory vehicle inspections performed by State employees,
by third-party inspectors authorized by the State, or by passenger
carrier employees through a State-authorized self-inspection program?
    9. If vehicle inspections are conducted by a State-authorized third
party or by passenger-carrier employees authorized by the State, are
there differences in safety outcomes between those conducted by State
employees and those conducted by third-party inspectors or through a
passenger carrier's State-authorized self-inspection facilities?
    10. Are there any specific benefits or concerns related to using
third-party inspectors or by others?
    11. If inspections are conducted by third-party inspectors or by
passenger carrier-employed mechanics or technicians, what oversight is
or should be required?
    12. Should self-inspection or third-party inspections be options
for compliance with a mandatory State inspection?
    13. How does/would the cost of inspections differ between those
conducted by State employees or by third-party inspectors?
    14. What might be other preferable options?

Measuring Effectiveness of Inspection Programs

    15. Does your State have information on violations discovered
during inspections that are attributable to maintenance issues that
should have been found during a required vehicle inspection?
    16. Has your State considered implementing a mandatory passenger-
carrying CMV inspection program, but declined to do so? If so, what are
your State's reasons for not implementing a program?
    17. If your State imposes mandatory inspection of passenger-
carrying CMVs, how is the effectiveness of that program measured?
    18. What are the most common vehicle defects discovered during
these mandatory vehicle inspections? What safety conclusions do you
draw from the results of these inspections?
    19. Has your State or organization collected data related to
crashes, injuries, or fatalities attributable to improperly maintained
or inspected passenger-carrying CMVs? If so, please provide summary
information or links to detailed data associated with these areas.
    20. Has the occurrence of passenger-carrying CMV-involved crashes,
injuries, or fatalities before and after the implementation of a
mandatory inspection requirement been evaluated? If so, please provide
summary information or links to detailed data associated with these
areas.
    21. After a State inspection requirement was instituted, what
changes were observed over time in the number of safety violations
discovered during inspections, if any.
    22. Do programs that inspect only a sample of vehicles have
significantly different outcomes than those where all vehicles are
inspected, please provide examples of how they differ?

Inspection Facilities and Locations

    23. Where does your State conduct mandatory passenger-carrying CMV

inspections (e.g., State owned/leased facility, third party facility,
carrier's place of business, or other type of facility)?
    24. Where should mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections be
performed?
    25. If mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections are conducted
at the carrier's place of business, what accommodations must be made to
ensure appropriate access (e.g., pits, lifts, etc.) to conduct full
inspections of motorcoaches and other large passenger vehicles?
    26. How does facility location or accessibility for mandatory
inspections impact inspections or compliance?
    27. What delays may the State experience in completing mandatory
inspections (e.g. lack of sufficient number of inspection facilities)?

Costs

    28. What is the cost per mandatory vehicle inspection to the
carrier?
    29. Do inspection fees differ based on the type of vehicle being
inspected?
    30. Do vehicle inspection fees differ based on location of the
inspections?
    31. How much does it cost the State to establish and run inspection
programs on an annual basis?
    32. If a vehicle does not pass an inspection, is there an
additional cost for the second inspection?
    33. If fees are collected by the State, does the State dedicate the
revenue to the administration of the program?

Uniformity of Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs

    34. What qualifications should be applicable to individuals
authorized to perform mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections?
    35. Should minimum training elements be required for passenger-
carrying CMV inspections? If so, how much training should be required
and who should administer the training?
    36. What should be the minimum vehicle components inspected under a
mandatory passenger-carrying vehicle CMV inspection program?
    37. How does the existence of different vehicle inspection
requirements among the States affect carrier business practices?
    38. How might business practices change under a uniform mandatory
passenger-carrying vehicle CMV inspection program?

Current Federal Standards

    39. How effective are existing Federal standards for the inspection
of passenger-carrying CMVs in (1) mitigating the risks associated with
improperly maintained vehicles and (2) ensuring the safe and proper
operating condition of the vehicles?

Federal Authority

    41. How should FMCSA incentivize the States to establish mandatory
passenger-carrying CMV inspection programs?

Robin Hutcheson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-09657 Filed 5-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT:  RCRA-2005-0018

The Agency received comments from four entities: the Basel Action
Network (BAN), a nongovernmental organization focused on the Basel
Convention and in particular on the issue of illegal trade in hazardous
wastes to developing countries; the Association of Battery Recyclers
(ABR), a national trade association representing the lead recycling
industry; Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), a global supplier of batteries
to the automotive aftermarket and original equipment manufacturers; and
Dow Chemical Company (DOW), a global chemical manufacturer.  The
comments were focused on specific issues or provisions in the proposed
rule.

OECD Revisions

Comment:  BAN  commented that EPA should subject all wastes on the OECD
amber list to amber control procedures when being exported regardless of
whether the materials are RCRA hazardous wastes.

Response:  This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking, as EPA
did not propose any changes to the fundamental regulatory framework
regarding the applicability of the OECD provisions in 40 CFR part 262,
subpart H (see Section II.A.5 of the proposed rule at 73 FR 58393).
Moreover, it is important to recognize that the Amended 2001 OECD
Decision and its predecessor have long recognized and allowed a Member
country to determine if a waste on an OECD list is hazardous based on
its “national procedures” (see Annex I, Section II.4 of the
“Decision of the Council C(92)39/FINAL Concerning the Control of
Transfrontier Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery” and Chapter
II, Section B.4 of the Amended 2001 Decision).  Discussion on how RCRA
implementation of “national procedures” impacts transboundary
movements of wastes subject to the RCRA exemptions, exclusions and
recycling provisions can be found in the April 12, 1996, preamble to the
original OECD rule (61 FR 16290-16316).  EPA is therefore finalizing the
scope of the OECD provisions in subpart H as proposed.

Comment:  BAN also commented that EPA should prohibit all exports of
OECD amber listed wastes to non-OECD countries for any reason.  ABR
similarly commented that EPA should prohibit all exports of SLABs to
non-OECD countries.

Response:  This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.  In any
event,  the statute does not give EPA the legal authority to implement
an outright ban on hazardous waste exports if they meet the appropriate
export requirements.  Specifically, RCRA section 3017 prohibits exports
of hazardous waste unless either:  (1) the shipments are covered under
and conform to the terms specified in an agreement between the U.S. and
the receiving country; or (2) the exporter has submitted written
notification to EPA, obtained written consent from the receiving country
via EPA, attached a copy of the written consent to the RCRA hazardous
waste manifest for each shipment, and ensures that the shipments comply
with the terms of the receiving country’s consent.  Moreover, section
3017 directs the State Department, on behalf of EPA, to forward a copy
of the notification to the intended country of import within 30 days of
EPA receiving a complete notification concerning a proposed waste export
that would not be covered under the terms of an existing international
agreement.  Therefore, an outright ban regarding all exports of any
individual hazardous waste (e.g. SLABs) or all hazardous wastes to
non-OECD countries would require changes to the statutory language and
is outside the scope of this regulatory action.

In practice, EPA has rarely received inquiries for hazardous waste
exports to non-OECD countries.  When approached by potential exporters
who ask about exporting hazardous wastes to non-OECD countries that are,
however, parties to the Basel Convention, it is EPA’s practice to
actively discourage such exports by informing them of the Basel
Convention prohibition on transboundary shipments of hazardous waste
between Basel Parties and a non-Party like the United States in the
absence of a formal agreement per Article 11 of the Basel Convention
(e.g., the U.S.-Canada bilateral agreement, the U.S.-Mexico bilateral
agreement, or the OECD multilateral agreement).  The United States has
no agreement with a non-OECD country for exports of RCRA hazardous
wastes.  A review of hazardous waste export notices between 1995 –
2007 indicates no approved or even proposed exports of RCRA hazardous
waste to a non-OECD country.  In the interest of transparency, however,
EPA intends to post online at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/international/hazard/index.htm" \t
""  http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/international/hazard/index.htm
summary information for all future notices we receive concerning a
proposed export of RCRA hazardous waste to a non-OECD country.  The
online information will list the exporter name, exporter address, waste
text description, proposed receiving country, and consent status (e.g.,
notice submitted to foreign country, whether the foreign country
consents or objects).  Moreover, EPA’s cover letters for notices
concerning exports to non-OECD countries will remind the countries, when
appropriate, of the relevant Basel hazardous waste listing and the Basel
Convention prohibition on transboundary shipments of hazardous waste
between Basel Parties and a non-Party like the United States.

Comment:  BAN asserted that EPA has not yet implemented the 1986 OECD
Council Decision-Recommendation C(86)64(final) (“1986 OECD
Decision-Recommendation”), and should do so immediately.

Response:  This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking, as EPA
proposed revisions to the OECD provisions to implement the Amended 2001
OECD Decision.

Comment:  BAN stated that EPA should compare the OECD amber waste list
with the list of RCRA wastes currently subject to notification and
consent requirements within the US to determine which amber listed
wastes are not being controlled for export to OECD countries.

Response:  As stated previously, exports of wastes controlled as
hazardous under US national procedures are subject to the OECD export
provisions in 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart H.  This approach has long been
allowed under the OECD framework.  While this approach does result in
some wastes being controlled differently within the US, there are set
procedures under the OECD framework for just such cases.  EPA informs
other OECD countries of the regulatory status for specific wastes within
the US when the other countries request such information.  In addition,
EPA will either send a letter or use the OECD online interactive
database to inform the OECD secretariat of those wastes which we control
differently on a case by case basis (amber as well as green).

Comment:  BAN suggested that the U.S. should simultaneously ratify the
Basel Convention and the Basel Ban Amendment.

Response:  This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Ratification of the Basel Convention, with or without the Basel Ban
Amendment, would require Congressional action to provide EPA the
legislative authority to implement either action.

Comment:  Dow stated that it supported EPA revising the existing
regulations to implement the Amended 2001 OECD Decision, and that the
revisions will clarify and streamline the import and export process
among OECD Member countries.

Response:  EPA agrees that the revisions will clarify and streamline the
import and export process among OECD Member countries.

SLAB Revisions

Three of the commenters recognized the need to require notification and
consent for SLABs being exported for reclamation in a foreign country,
and all four commenters supported EPA establishing the notice and
consent export requirements.  Dow made a general comment of support for
the revisions to the SLAB regulations.

Comment:  As part of ABR’s comments suggesting that EPA ban all
exports of SLABs to non-OECD countries (discussed in the previous
section), ABR submitted data that analyzed export shipments of SLABs and
other lead scrap based on the harmonized tariff code classifications
between 2006 – 2008.  The data indicated shipments of lead scrap
and/or SLABs to non-OECD countries (e.g., China and India).  ABR
asserted that this data demonstrates that many exporters were
mislabeling their SLAB shipments as non-battery scrap, and that EPA
might be underestimating the amount of SLABs that were exported for
reclamation between 2006 - 2008.

Response:  After reviewing the analysis conducted by ABR, who generally
supports the proposed rule, we do not believe that ABR’s data would
lead to a significantly different answer, and cause EPA to reconsider
its position.  In particular, ABR’s data indicated total exports of
SLABs and non-battery scrap were approximately 220,000 metric tons in
2006 and approximately 250,000 metric tons in 2007, with about 8% of the
total exports in 2006 going to non-OECD countries.  In comparison,
EPA’s data on SLAB exports estimated that 269,171 metric tons were
exported in 2006, and that 1.77% went to non-OECD countries.  Because
the maximum annual amount of SLABs exported between 2006 - 2007 based on
ABR’s data is less than the annual amount based on EPA’s data, the
Agency believes it most appropriate that the data used in the economic
analysis for the proposed rule should continue be used, and not revised
to include the ABR data in the economic analysis for the final rule.  As
a general note, if anyone has specific knowledge pertaining to specific
export shipments that they believe are in violation of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations, we encourage them to submit it using EPA's
website at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/index.html.

Comment:  ABR stated that adding export requirements to 40 CFR part 266,
subpart G that reference the 40 CFR part 262 requirements was confusing,
and instead recommended that EPA simply require that all SLABs destined
for export to be managed as Universal Waste batteries under 40 CFR part
273.

Response:  EPA does not agree that requiring all SLABs that will be
exported in the future be managed under 40 CFR part 273 would be easier
or less confusing.  EPA’s policy has long allowed collectors and
managers of SLABs destined for recycling to choose either Part 273 or
Part 266 (see Section IV.B.2.b of the 1995 Final Universal Waste Rule at
60 FR 25504 and following pages).  We believe that having the same
export requirements for SLAB exports in 40 CFR part 273 and 40 CFR part
266, subpart G is the most straightforward approach to ensuring that
SLAB exports for reclamation are appropriately controlled, and the
references to requirements in 40 CFR part 262 should be no more
confusing than the previously established references to 40 CFR parts 261
and 268.  EPA is therefore finalizing the 40 CFR part 266, subpart G
requirements as proposed.

Comment:  JCI commented that a three-year time period for notice and
consent of SLAB exports (as opposed to a one-year time period) would
reduce the burden on U.S. exporters while still providing sufficient
notification to the importing country of proposed shipments.

Response:  While the Amended 2001 OECD Decision does allow importing
countries to issue extended consents that last for up to three years
when the proposed shipment is destined for a facility that the importing
country has “pre-approved” for such imports, OECD countries are
neither required to pre-approve facilities nor to issue such extended
consents.  The international agreements covering exports from the United
States that are in place with Canada, Mexico, and the OECD all specify a
one-year time period as the standard maximum length of time that a
notification and consent can cover.  Consistent with those agreements
and with all other RCRA export regulatory requirements in 40 CFR parts
261, 262 and 273, EPA is therefore retaining the one-year time period
for SLABs being exported under 40 CFR part 266, subpart G.

Export Exception Report Technical Correction and Import Revisions

BAN and Dow both made a general comment of support for the proposed
technical corrections regarding export exception reports and import
consent documentation submissions, as proposed.  Neither JCI nor ABR
commented on these proposed revisions.

“ Decision-Recommendation of the Council on Exports of Hazardous
Wastes from the OECD area,” issued June 5, 1986.  This document is
available online at   HYPERLINK
"http://webdomino1.oecd.org/horizontal/oecdacts.nsf/linkto/C(86)64"
http://webdomino1.oecd.org/horizontal/oecdacts.nsf/linkto/C(86)64 , and
a copy has been placed in the docket established for this rulemaking.

  PAGE  - 6 -


[Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 55460]
[DOCID:fr22se06-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-591-000]

Wyoming Interstate Company, LTD; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

September 15, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2006, Wyoming Interstate Company,
LTD (WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 2, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
October 12, 2006:

First Revised Sheet No. 53A
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 54
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 54A
Third Revised Sheet No. 56A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 57F

    WIC states that the tariff sheets are being submitted to remove the
``First Bid Meeting the Minimums'' as a bid evaluation method for
capacity release transactions.
    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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15651 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64764-64765]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-552-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Compressor Station 245
Horsepower Replacement Project and Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Compressor Station 245
Horsepower Replacement Project involving construction and operation of
facilities by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (TGP) in Herkimer
County, New York. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on November 24, 2014.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    TGP provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site
(www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    At its existing Compressor Station 245 in Herkimer County, New
York, TGP proposes to:
    (1) Abandon in place one existing 3,500 horsepower Worthington ML12
natural gas-fired compressor unit;
    (2) retire from active service three existing 1,400 horsepower
Worthington UTC natural gas-fired compressor units and retain the units
in place for standby use;
    (3) install one new 8,219 horsepower Taurus 70 natural gas-fired
turbine compressor unit; and
    (4) construct a new compressor building and associated facilities
to house the new compressor unit.
    TGP states that the project would enable TGP to meet New York state
nitrogen oxide emission limits, and would improve overall system
reliability and flexibility. TGP does not anticipate that its proposal
would result in any increase in mainline capacity.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The project would disturb approximately 25 acres of previously
disturbed land entirely owned by TGP within the existing Compressor
Station 245 property boundary. Public roads as well as private roads on
the existing Compressor Station 245 site would be used for access to
proposed construction work areas. New road extensions from existing
roads within the compressor station site would be constructed.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation, wildlife, and sensitive species;
     air quality and noise; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to

avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments,
the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before November 24, 2014.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP14-552-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected
landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who own homes
within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who
submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the
information related to this environmental review to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-
552). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: October 24, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25898 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P