[Federal Register: October 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 199)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63398-63399]
[DOCID:fr15oc10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0926]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hackensack River, Jersey City,
NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Route 1 & 9 Lincoln Highway Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile
1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey. The deviation allows the bridge owner
to require a two-hour advance notice for openings for two and a half
months and several short term bridge closures to facilitate bridge
painting operations.

DATES: This deviation is effective with constructive notice from
October 15, 2010 through December 15, 2010, and for enforcement with
actual notice from October 4, 2010 through October 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0926 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0926 in the
``Keyword'' and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Route 1 & 9 Lincoln Highway Bridge,
across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey, has
a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet at mean high
water and 40 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
    The waterway is primarily used by deep draft tankers, tugs and
barge units.
    The owner of the bridge, New Jersey Department of Transportation,
requested a second temporary deviation from the regulations to
facilitate scheduled bridge painting operations at the bridge.
    We issued a previous temporary deviation for this bridge painting
project which was in effect from April 1, 2010 through September 15,
2010; however, due to weather related delays additional time is needed
to complete the bridge painting before the cold winter climate forces
suspension of painting operations.
    Waterway users were advised of the requested bridge advance notice
and closure periods and offered no objection.
    Under this temporary deviation the Route 1 & 9 Lincoln Highway
Bridge shall require a two-hour advance notice for bridge openings from
October 1, 2010 through December 15, 2010, by calling the number posted
at the bridge.
    In addition, the bridge owner requested several bridge closures of
short duration to facilitate bridge painting operations.
    The exact bridge closure dates are not known at this time; however,
once determined, we will publish the closure dates in the Local Notice
to Mariners two weeks in advance of implementation and also issue a
safety information broadcast twenty-four hours in advance of the
implementation.
    Vessels able to pass under the closed draw may do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-25920 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5305]
[DOCID:fr01fe06-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-50-000]

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Notice of Application

January 24, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 18, 2006, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (Panhandle), P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-4967,
filed in Docket No. CP06-50-000, an application pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for authorization to: (1) Install a
new receipt point with Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), (2)
replace and construct new minor facilities to reconfigure a portion of
Panhandle's Liberal 24-inch 100-Line to add the capability of bi-
directional flow, (3) relocate certain form and city tap facilities;
and (4) install metering and appurtenant facilities, located in Seward,
Meade, Clark, Ford and Kiowa Counties, Kansas, all as more fully set
forth in the request which is on file with Commission and open to
public inspection.
    Specifically, Panhandle proposes to: (1) Relocate 80 farm tap
customers and 8 city-gate delivery point customers form Panhandle's
100-Line to Panhandle's existing 200-Line and 300-Line, (2) replace an
existing launcher with a new 24-inch bi-directional launcher/receiver
at the Liberal Compressor Station, (3) install two new 24-inch bi-
directional launcher/receiver facilities, including a 12-inch
ultrasonic meter skid and appurtenant facilities at the existing
Mullinville Receipt Meter location; and (4) install a new 24-inch tee,
24-inch valve, and connecting piping at the Mullinville Receipt Meter
location to the outlet of the new meter skid. The cost of the proposed
project is estimated to be $4.96 million.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
William W. Grygar, Vice President, Rates and Regulatory Affairs, at
(713) 989-7000, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, 5444
Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link.
    Comment Date: February 14, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1243 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 55837]
[DOCID:fr29oc09-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Membership of Performance Review Board for Senior
Executives (PRB)

October 22, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of
the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB) for the
Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The function of
this board is to make recommendations relating to the performance of
senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in
accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4).
    The Commission's PRB will remove the following member: Cynthia A.
Marlette.
    The Commission's PRB will add the following member: Thomas R.
Sheets.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25977 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Charge to the Panel: October 24-26, 2006 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA has prepared a memorandum, dated September 26, 2006, that contains
the Agency’s technical assessment of the likelihood of pink bollworm
resistance under the conditions of Arizona’s pink bollworm eradication
program.  Any reference to figures, tables, specific page numbers, and
appendices (bold type) mentioned below are from this memorandum.

Estimations of Pink Bollworm Populations Using Pheromone Trapping and
Spatial Analysis.

Geospatial maps of the Bt and non-Bt cotton fields were provided by the
Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council (Appendix 4). There were
4,626 total fields (approx. 156,000 acres) in the eradication zone.
There were 334 non-Bt fields (6.92%) and 4,292 Bt fields (93.08%) (Table
2).  Each field is numbered.  These fields are the target areas for the
sterile moth releases, pheromone, and insecticide treatments. There were
a total of 4,541 pheromone traps placed in all fields with 3,541
pheromone traps placed in Bt fields and 1,000 pheromone traps place in
non-Bt fields.  The protocol for the sterile moth releases is found on
p. 11 of EPA’s technical assessment.  The actual sterile moth release
rates through August 25, 2006 are found in Table 4.  The number of traps
per field ranged from 0 to 14.  The scheme for using the trapping and
map data is shown in Figure 5.

To present the trapping data as a predicted surface of PBW numbers, the
Kriging method was used to calculate a predicted value for areas between
the known values of each field.  Kriging is a regression technique used
in geostatistics to estimate the optimal interpolation of these points
across the spatial domain.  This method handles spatial autocorrelation
and is not sensitive to uneven sampling in specific areas, such as the
distribution of cotton fields in the eradication program.  Ordinary
Kriging using a spherical model was applied to trap counts for each week
(see Volume 2, Table 1 of the submission, MRID# 469048-02 for the data)
to develop a predictive surface model encompassing the cotton fields.
Kriging constructs a weighted moving average that estimates the value of
a spatially distributed variable from adjacent values while considering
the interdependence.  Kriging results in a smoothing effect in which
high original values are underestimated and low original values are
overestimated.  It is a best linear unbiased estimator because it
minimizes the variance of the estimation errors.

The Kriging maps of native and sterile PBW populations in Arizona’s
eradication program from June 25 through July 22, 2006 are found in
Figures 6A-H.  This analysis indicates that the sterile PBW adult
populations are more abundant, consistent and more widely distributed
than the native population.  The native populations are limited to 1-5
moths per trap with 3-5 areas as “hot spots” (PBW captures > 25)
during this four week sampling period.  The sterile PBW populations are
more abundant with captures > 50 in many areas.  Early results from the
eradication program indicate that the sterile releases have been quite
successful in reducing native PBW populations.

The Panel is asked to comment on the accuracy and precision of the
estimates of native and sterile pink bollworm population levels in the
eradication zone in Arizona in 2006 using the described pheromone
trapping and boll sampling methods, and spatial analysis (Kriging
method).  Factors that may affect the native and sterile pink bollworm
populations estimates include, but are not limited to:

Number and location of Bt and non-Bt fields

Size of fields (e.g., 15 ha)

Use of pheromone traps, only males sampled, to estimate overall
population size (and therefore population suppression estimates)

Number and placement of traps within a field

Number of traps in Bt vs. non-Bt fields

Use of the centroid of the field to estimate trap location within a
field vs. exact location of the field using GPS coordinates for the
spatial analysis (Kriging method), e.g., to address “hot spots”
within a field or set of small fields

Sterile release rates (Bt vs. non-Bt)

Frequency of sterile releases

Predictions about the ratios of sterile: native moths

Estimations of overwintering larvae per field

Boll sampling data (not available for these analyses, too early in the
season)

Please identify major sources of uncertainty in the estimates of PBW
population levels and comment on whether the estimates tend to overstate
or understate actual levels of native and sterile PBW.

Given the discussion in a) above, what suggestions does the Panel have
to strengthen the accuracy and precision of the native and sterile pink
bollworm population estimates?

Simulation Modeling.

The Agency required that simulation modeling be used to compare the
impact of pink bollworm population suppression vs. resistance risk over
the four-year period of the eradication program.   The simulation model
used was a revised version of the spatially-explicit, stochastic model
discussed in Sisterson et al. (2004).  The simulations examined
population suppression (number of pink bollworm per ha) and risk of
resistance to Bt cotton (rate of increase of resistance allele
frequency).  This model assumes that resistance controlled by a single,
recessive gene.  This model is based on PBW resistance to Cry1Ac.
Modifications to the model include the release of sterile moths. A
variety of scenarios were simulated using the best estimates of the
parameter values as well as more optimistic and more pessimistic
scenarios.

Preliminary modeling, even  using more “worst-case/pessimistic”
parameter assumptions, predict that the four-year eradication program in
Arizona will suppress pink bollworm without creating a problem with
Cry1Ac resistance to Bt cotton.  In 11 of 12 sets of assumptions
examined, the simulated eradication program eliminated the PBW from the
4096 fields modeled in two years or less without causing a resistance
problem.   In the one exception, PBW was not removed from the region
when the model simulation assumed no release of sterile moths in Bt
fields, 90% Bt cotton, and r = 0.01 in all five replications.  In this
case, the population density declined by 98% (460 final overwintering
larvae per field/29,000 starting overwintering larvae per field) and the
resistance allele frequency increased from 0.01 to 0.02 after four
years, but was still far lower than the 0.50 value typically used as a
criterion for a resistance problem.  The model assumes that population
suppression will occur if the mean PBW density in the region is equal to
or less than 0.1 overwintering larvae per 15 ha (=0.0067 larvae per ha).

The Panel is asked to comment on the certainty of the preliminary
outcomes of the modeling simulations using worst-case assumptions, in
many cases, that pink bollworm populations will be suppressed and there
will be no resistance to Cry1Ac during the four years of the eradication
program simulations.

Dr. Bruce Tabashnik (University of Arizona) plans to conduct additional
simulations using field data collected in 2006 as model inputs in place
of certain assumptions used in the 2005 simulations.

b)  The Panel is asked to comment on whether there is any reason to
expect these additional simulations of pink bollworm resistance over the
four-year period of the eradication program will change the predicted
outcome to indicate a greater risk of the development of resistance than
seen in the 12 other simulations in which no resistance was seen.

PBW resistance to the Cry2Ab2 toxin was not considered in either the
simulation modeling or DNA screening analyses.  Additional consideration
of PBW resistance to the Cry2Ab2 toxin would only be important if the
selection pressure dramatically increases in the next three years, i.e.,
much more Bollgard II planted in the eradication zone.  If some or all
of Arizona’s Bt cotton had two toxins, Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab, evolution of
resistance would be much less likely than it is with only Cry1Ac.
Modeling resistance to cotton that produces only Cry1Ac is the more
pessimistic scenario.  The modeling predictions (using only Cry1Ac
resistance), therefore, are conservative, i.e., they tend to
overestimate resistance risk.  Based on simulation models examining the
likelihood of insect resistance to pyramided toxins in Bt crops (e.g.,
Roush, 1998; Zhao et al., 2005), even if Bollgard II acreage
substantially increases, the likelihood of PBW resistance to both the
Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 toxins would remain low during the four-year PBW
eradication program in Arizona.

c)  The Agency asks the Panel to comment on the likelihood of Cry2Ab2
resistance given that percentage of Bollgard II planted in Arizona has
been <5% of the total Bt cotton acreage, and simulation modeling
predicts that the likelihood of insect resistance to pyramided toxins in
Bt cotton would be extremely low.

Likelihood of Pink Bollworm Resistance in Future Years of the
Eradication Program in Arizona.

The Panel is asked to comment on the scientific validity of whether the
preliminary field data, spatial analysis, and simulation modeling are
adequate to provide reasonable certainty that the likelihood of pink
bollworm resistance to the Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 toxins will be extremely
low during the four years of Arizona’s eradication program.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1