                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

March 15, 2012
TXR # 0052354

SUBJECT:	Acetamiprid:  Summary of Hazard and Science Policy Council (HASPOC) Meeting of March 15, 2012:  Recommendation on the need for a 28-day inhalation study.

PC Code:  099050
DP Barcode:  N/A
Decision No.:  N/A
Registration No.:  N/A
Petition No.:  N/A
Regulatory Action:  N/A
Risk Assessment Type:  Single Chemical/ Aggregate
Case No.:  7620
TXR No.:  0052354
CAS No.:  210880-92-5
MRID No.:  N/A
40 CFR:  §180.586

FROM:	Kristin Rury, MPH
		Executive Secretary, HASPOC
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Jess Rowland, Co-Chair
      Anna Lowit, Ph.D, Co-Chair
            HASPOC
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Elizabeth Holman, Chemist
      Alan C. Levy, Ph.D., Toxicologist
		Suku Oonnithan, Biologist
		Christina Swartz, Chief
      Risk Assessment Branch II (RABII)
            Health Effects Division (HED; 7509P)

MEETING ATTENDEES:

HASPOC Members:  Elissa Reaves, Jeff Evans, Jess Rowland, John Kough, Michael Metzger, PV Shah, Ray Kent
Presenters:  Christina Swartz, Suku Oonnithan, Michael Doherty

Other Attendees:  Elizabeth Holman Michael Doherty, Kristin Rury, Julie Van Alstine.

I.  PURPOSE OF MEETING:

Risk Assessment Branch II (RAB II) is preparing an acetamiprid risk assessment for several Interregional Research Project 4 (IR-4) uses and beginning the re-evaluation of all existing acetamiprid uses for registration review.  Acetamiprid is a member of the neonicotinoid class of insecticides.  It is registered for use on a variety of agricultural crops and ornamental plants, as seed and crack and crevice treatments, and for use in food handling establishments.  In addition, acetamiprid is registered for residential handler use as a mattress treatment, and as an outdoor perimeter treatment.  In agricultural settings, acetamiprid is applied using ground- or aerial-based broadcast spray equipment.  As a result of the registered use patterns, repeated exposures to aerosolized acetamiprid may occur.  The toxicity database does not contain a repeated exposure inhalation toxicity study; therefore, an oral study has been used to assess risks via the inhalation route of exposure for both residential and occupational handlers.  The Hazard Science Policy Council (HASPOC) met on March 15, 2012 to discuss the need for a 28-day rat inhalation study to support registered and proposed uses of acetamiprid.  The HASPOC discussed both the exposure estimates using the point of departure (POD) from the developmental neurotoxicity study and the potential mitigation options available to reduce handler exposure.  The HASPOC also discussed whether an additional inhalation study would provide a more sensitive endpoint for risk assessment while being protective of the offspring effects seen in the developmental toxicity study.

II.  SUMMARY OF USE PROFILE & PREVIOUS RISK ASSESSMENTS:

Acetamiprid is a selective insecticide intended for use to control various sucking/chewing insect pests that feed upon fruit and vegetable crops.  It is a member of the chloronicotinyl (neonicotinoid) class of insecticides.  Acetamiprid is registered for use on agricultural crops and ornamental plants, as seed treatments, and for use in food handling establishments.  In addition, acetamiprid is registered for residential uses as crack and crevice and mattress treatments, and as outdoor termiticide and perimeter treatments.  Formulations include dry flowable (DF), wettable powder (WP), water-soluble packet (WSP), emulsifiable concentrate (EC), and ready-to-use liquid (RTU).  Occupational handlers are expected to be exposed to acetamiprid for short- and intermediate-term durations; however, residential handlers are expected to be exposed for short-term durations only.

The most recent risk assessment for acetamiprid was completed on 11/30/2011 (Memo, M. Doherty et al. D385260, D388794) and addressed potential risks associated with use on soybeans and in food/feed handling establishments.  In the absence of a route-specific inhalation toxicity study, the inhalation risk assessment was based on the POD and the endpoint from an oral toxicity study.  The endpoint for risk assessment was offspring effects [decreased body weight and body weight gains in the offspring, decreased early pup survival on post-natal days (PND) 0-1, and decreased startle response on PND 20/60 in males] in the developmental neurotoxicity study observed at the LOAEL of 45 mg/kg/day.  The POD to assess short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposures to acetamiprid was the NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day.  No Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor is needed (1X) for acetamiprid because there are no residual uncertainties for pre- or post-natal toxicity.

Inhalation MOEs from occupational activities range from 290 to 250,000, with most of the values being greater than 3,000 [Level of Concern (LOC) = 100].  For residential uses, inhalation MOEs range from 3,600 for handlers applying an outdoor perimeter treatment to 560,000 for adults, post-application, following indoor crack and crevice treatment.

III. STUDY WAIVER REQUESTS

Inhalation Study

Previously, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) used a set of criteria to determine whether or not an inhalation study could be waived.  These criteria considered the scientific information available for the chemical, including its: (1) degree of irritation and corrosivity; 2) volatility; 3) aerosol particle size; and 4) Acute Toxicity Category and extrapolated MOEs (e.g., MOEs 10 times higher than the target).  In 2009, OPP developed an issue paper on risk assessment approaches for semi-volatile pesticides.  As part of that issue paper, an analytical comparison was conducted of oral and inhalation experimental toxicology studies.  In general, this analysis showed that the degree to which oral PODs were protective of potential inhalation toxicity varied.  In many cases the oral POD was protective but in some cases the inhalation PODs were significantly more sensitive.  Currently, OPP uses a weight of the evidence (WOE) approach that builds upon OPP's experience using the criteria listed above conclusions from the 2009 SAP.  As approaches for route to route extrapolation continue to evolve and improve, OPP may incorporate additional considerations into the WOE analysis.

Inhalation exposure can be to vapors, droplets, and/or particles/dusts.  The form of this exposure is determined by a number of factors including physical-chemical properties, use pattern, and exposure scenarios.  This interim WOE approach considers:

   1. Physical-chemical properties:  Vapor pressure and Henry's law constant are key considerations with respect to the volatilization after sprays have settled.  Acetamiprid (MW = 222.7 g/mol) has a low vapor pressure (1 x10[-8] mm Hg at 25°C) and an estimated Henry's law constant of 6.9 x 10[-8] atm-cu m/mole at 25°C.  However, low vapor pressure and/or Henry's law constant does not preclude exposure to aerosolized droplets or particles/dusts.

   2. Use pattern & exposure scenarios:  Any application scenario that leads to inhalation of droplets needs to be considered in the WOE analysis for an inhalation toxicology study waiver request.  Airblast and aerial applications are more likely to lead to higher occupational handler inhalation exposure, particularly to droplets; and may also contribute to spray drift.  In the case of acetamiprid, the highest inhalation exposures were associated with mixer/applicator seed treatment activities with canola and mustard seed with the use of a respirator (MOE = 290).

   3. Margins of Exposure (MOEs): The MOE estimates for inhalation scenarios were calculated using the NOAEL from an oral toxicity study, and should be considered in the WOE analysis for an inhalation toxicology study waiver.  In the past, OPP has used MOEs of approximately 10 times higher than the level of concern as a benchmark for granting waiver requests (i.e., in the case of acetamiprid, higher than 1,000).  The 2009 analysis suggests this approach is appropriate for most pesticides, but not all.  Under the interim WOE approach, MOEs from 10-100 times greater than the level of concern will be considered in combination with other factors discussed here.  All worker exposures are assessed as short-and intermediate-term based on label-prescribed uses and expected exposure durations.  The HASPOC notes that the highest exposure estimate (MOE = 290) assumes the use of a respirator when treating canola and mustard seed with a WP formulation of acetamiprid.  However, this is considered a highly protective exposure estimate because it uses a conservative (high-end) amount of seed treated.  Despite the use of a respirator, the MOEs for occupational handlers do not meet the waiver criterion for MOEs ranging from 10-100 times the LOC.   However, for residential exposures, the MOEs are significantly higher (inhalation MOEs range from 3,600 to 560,000), and meet the waiver criterion.

   4. Toxicity:  Acetamiprid and its metabolites have relatively low (Category III or IV) acute toxicity via inhalation and dermal routes of exposure in the rat and there is no evidence of dermal sensitization or eye irritation.  Acetamiprid showed somewhat higher toxicity (Category II) via the oral route.  Acute toxicity testing of the WP, WSP, and RTU formulations resulted in Category III or IV designations for all routes of exposure.  Overall, the toxicology data showed that in all species tested, generalized nonspecific toxicity was observed as decreases in body weight, body weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency.  Generalized effects were also observed in the liver in the form of hepatocellular hypertrophy in both mice and rats and hepatocellular vacuolation in the rat.  These effects are considered to be adaptive.  Other effects observed in the oral studies include amyloidosis of multiple organs in the mouse oncogenicity study, tremors in high dose females in the mouse subchronic study, and microconcretions in the kidney papilla and mammary hyperplasia in the rat chronic/oncogenicity study.  Decreased pup survival and neurological effects in rats are attributable to exposure to acetamiprid and these effects serve as the basis for acute risk assessments.  An oral POD of 10 mg/kg/day based on offspring effects (decreased survival, body weight and body weight gains and decreased startle response) observed at 45 mg/kg/day in a developmental neurotoxicity study is used for assessing short and intermediate term risks via inhalation exposure resulting from occupational and residential uses.  For evaluating long-term exposure, risks are evaluated based on body weight effects and liver effects (hepatocellular vacuolation).  Based on the completeness of the database, the observed effects, and the endpoints used for risk assessment, the FQPA Safety Factor has been reduced to 1X.  Acetamiprid has been classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

When considering the need for an inhalation toxicity study, the Agency will evaluate other pesticides which share the same MOA and/or are in the same class.  These pesticides can provide important information with respect to potential inhalation toxicity.  Specifically, if other similar pesticides show inhalation toxicity studies to be more sensitive, an inhalation toxicity study may be required regardless of MOE, depending on the exposure profile.  Acetamiprid is a member of the neonicitinoid class of insecticides, which also includes the following insecticides:  clothianadin, imidacloprid, dinotefuran, thiamethoxam, and thiacloprid.  HASPOC recently concluded that a 28-day inhalation study was required for clothianadin (J. VanAlstine, TXR#0055320, 03/23/2012).  Inhalation studies are available for imidacloprid, dinotefuran and thiacloprid.  No effects were noted in the inhalation studies for imidacloprid and dinotefuran at the highest concentration tested, and thus these studies were not used for PODs in the risk assessment.  However, the thiacloprid inhalation study is the basis of inhalation risk assessment PODs for that chemical.  Note that the toxicological profile for thaicloprid is quite different from that of the other neonicotinoid insecticides.

   5. Risk Assessment Implications:  Currently, HED has not identified any risks of concern for occupational handlers exposed via the inhalation route; however, risk estimates are approaching HED's level of concern for some scenarios that include maximum PPE mitigation (respirator).  Given the low MOEs, a route-specific inhalation toxicity study will reduce uncertainty associated with the use of an oral POD and provide a more refined, accurate estimate of the MOEs.  Despite an inhalation study's inability to address the concerns for developmental toxicity associated with acetamiprid, the toxicity database showed consistent NOAELs across studies and species.  An inhalation study might provide additional information to inform the human health risk assessment by allowing HED to select a route-specific endpoint and dose that would still be protective of offspring effects.
IV.  HASPOC RECOMMENDATIONS:

The HASPOC concluded based on a WOE approach that a 28-day inhalation toxicity study is required at this time to reduce uncertainty associated with the use of an oral POD for assessing risk via the inhalation route.  This determination considered all of the available hazard and exposure information for acetamiprid, including: (1) the use of an oral POD that results in MOEs as low as approximately 300 for risk via the inhalation route resulting from occupational exposures; and (2) the toxicological profile of acetamiprid.


[Federal Register: February 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6868-6870]
[DOCID:fr11fe09-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-398-002]

Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare
An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Mira Compressor Station
Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

February 4, 2009.
    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 Mira Compressor Station

Amendment (Mira Amendment) involving construction and operation of
facilities by Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC (Gulf Crossing) in
Caddo Parish, Louisiana.\1\ This EA will be used by the Commission in
its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 5, 2008, Gulf South filed its application with
the Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157
of the Commission's regulations. The Commission issued its Notice of
Application on December 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will
use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on March 6, 2009.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local
government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, and how to participate in the
Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC
Internet Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Gulf Crossing proposes to upgrade the two previously certificated
turbine-compressor units at the Mira Compressor Station to larger
turbine compressor units to increase the total horsepower of the Mira
Compressor Station by 14,896. Gulf Crossing would install a new Solar
Mars 100-15000S/C452 natural gas-fired turbine and a Solar Titan 130-
20502S/C653 natural gas-fired turbine in place of the previous units
for a total Station horsepower of 35,500. In addition, minor upgrades
to the station's auxiliary facilities would be required.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link 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. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If approved, Gulf Crossing proposes to commence construction of the
proposed facilities in July 2009.

Land Requirements for Construction

    All construction activities associated with the modifications to
the Mira Compressor Station would be located within the previously
certificated facility footprint. A total of 20 acres would be utilized
during construction, and 10 acres would be retained within the fenced
area of the compressor station.

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
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 of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species;
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible 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.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are
considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public
participation section below.
    With this NOI, we are asking federal, state, and local agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have
evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Additional
agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should
follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this NOI.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have identified potential impacts to air quality and a potential
increase in noise impacts as two issues that we think deserve attention
based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the
environmental information provided by Gulf Crossing. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Mira Amendment. 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 in your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
March 6, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods in which you can use
to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number CP07-398-002 with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has
dedicated eFiling

expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3,
PJ11.3.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

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
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 a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included 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 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (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. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, 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/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-2866 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SINCLAIR WYOMING REFINING

COMPANY, et al.,

		Petitioners,

		v.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

		Respondent.	            No. 14-9594

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

	WHEREAS, the parties to this Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”)
are Petitioners Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company and Sinclair Casper
Refining Company (jointly, “Sinclair”) and Respondent United States
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) (collectively, the
“Parties”);

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2014, Sinclair filed separate petitions for
review in the United States Courts of Appeal for the Tenth and District
of Columbia Circuits challenging, pursuant to Section 307(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), EPA’s August 29, 2014 denials
of Sinclair’s requests for extensions of its small refinery temporary
exemptions for its refineries in Evansville and Sinclair, Wyoming
(collectively, the “Small Refinery Temporary Exemptions”) (see
Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co. et al. v EPA, No. 14-9594 (10th Cir.) and
Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co. et al. v. EPA, No. 14-1209 (D.C. Cir.)
(jointly, the “Pending Cases”);

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to implement this Agreement to resolve
Sinclair’s challenges to EPA’s denials of its requests for
extensions of its Small Refinery Temporary Exemptions;

WHEREAS, Sinclair has advised EPA that it intends to submit to EPA, in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i), a request for an
extension of its Small Refinery Temporary Exemptions with respect to
Sinclair’s 2014 obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standards
(“RFS”) Program (the “2014 Exemption Request”);

WHEREAS, pursuant to the timetables set forth in this Agreement and the
schedule set forth in the proposed rule titled “Renewable Fuel
Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and Biomass-Based
Diesel Volume for 2017,” 80 Fed. Reg. 33100 (June 10, 2015), if
Sinclair submits the 2014 Exemption Request within 30 calendar days of
when EPA issues the final renewable fuel obligation for 2014, then
Sinclair will not be required to submit its compliance demonstration
report for the 2014 compliance year until after EPA makes a final
decision on the 2014 Exemption Request;

WHEREAS, the Parties consider this Settlement Agreement to be an
adequate and equitable resolution of the issues in Pending Cases;

NOW THEREFORE, Sinclair and EPA hereby agree as follows:

After EPA issues the final 2014 RFS, Sinclair may submit the 2014
Exemption Request.

Within 14 business days after receiving the 2014 Exemption Request from
Sinclair, EPA shall either make a determination that the Request is
complete or advise Sinclair in writing of any additional information
needed to make the Request complete (an Incompleteness Determination).
This same obligation applies if and when Sinclair submits additional
information in response to an Incompleteness Determination.  After EPA
determines that the 2014 Exemption Request is complete, EPA shall issue
its decision to Sinclair on the 2014 Exemption Request within 90
calendar days.

Within five business days of EPA issuing its decision on the 2014
Exemption Request, Sinclair shall (1) voluntarily dismiss the Pending
Cases with prejudice and (2) send a letter to EPA withdrawing its
January 13, 2015 “Request for Reconsideration of Petition for Partial
Extension of Small Refinery RFS Exemptions” regarding EPA’s August
29, 2014 denials of Sinclair’s requests for extensions of the Small
Refinery Temporary Exemptions.  Sinclair shall comply with the
obligations in the preceding sentence regardless of whether EPA grants
or denies the 2014 Exemption Request.

If EPA does not issue its decision on the 2014 Exemption Request within
the time frame set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement, Sinclair may
seek to reactivate the Pending Cases.  Sinclair understands that its
sole and exclusive remedy shall be to reactivate the Pending Cases.
Sinclair shall not file a motion to reactivate the Pending Cases without
first providing EPA with written notice: (1) outlining the nature of
EPA’s alleged failure to perform its obligations; and (2) requesting
informal negotiations with EPA to resolve any dispute over EPA’s
alleged failure to perform its obligations.  Such written notice must be
provided to EPA and, if possible, the undersigned counsel for EPA at
least five business days before filing a motion to reactivate the
Pending Cases.  Nothing in this Settlement Agreement waives any right or
defense EPA may have if the Pending Cases are reactivated.

The Parties may by mutual agreement modify this Agreement by written
stipulation executed by counsel for the Parties.

Nothing in the terms of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or
modify the discretion accorded EPA under the Clean Air Act or by general
principles of administrative law.

Nothing in the terms of this Agreement shall be construed to limit
EPA’s authority to alter, amend, or revise any final rule EPA may
issue or to promulgate superseding regulations.

Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, none of the Parties
waives or relinquishes any legal rights, claims, or defenses it may
have.

The Parties shall bear their own litigation costs.

The obligations imposed upon EPA under this Agreement can only be
undertaken using appropriated funds. No provision of this Agreement
shall be interpreted as or constitute a commitment or requirement that
EPA obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act,
31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other applicable provision of law.

 If a lapse in appropriations for EPA occurs within 120 days prior to
the deadlines in this Agreement, those deadlines will be extended
automatically one day for each day of the lapse in appropriations.
Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude EPA from seeking an additional
extension through modification of this Agreement pursuant to Paragraph
5.

 The Parties agree and acknowledge that before this Agreement can be
finalized, EPA must provide notice in the Federal Register and an
opportunity for comment pursuant to CAA Section 113(g), 42 U.S.C. §
7413(g).  EPA shall promptly submit a public notice of this Agreement to
the Federal Register for publication and public comment for the required
period of time.  After this Agreement has undergone the requisite notice
and comment, the Administrator and/or the Attorney General, as
appropriate, shall promptly consider any such written comments in
determining whether to withdraw or withhold consent to this Agreement,
in accordance with CAA Section 113(g), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g).  If the
Administrator and/or the Attorney General elect(s) to not withdraw or
withhold consent to this Agreement, this Agreement shall become final on
the date that EPA provides written notice of such finality to Sinclair.
EPA shall provide such written notice within 20 business days of the
close of the comment period noted above.

The undersigned representatives of each party certify that they are
fully authorized by the party or parties they represent to bind the
respective parties to the terms of this Agreement.  This Agreement will
be deemed to be executed when it has been signed by the representatives
of the Parties, subject to final approval pursuant to Paragraph 12.

Dated: ______________, 2015

Dated: ______________, 2015

___________________________________

JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD

BRITTANY PEMBERTON

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

2000 K Street N.W., Suite 500

Washington, D.C.  20006

(202) 828-5852 (telephone)

(202) 857-4812 (facsimile)

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Counsel for Petitioners

JOHN C. CRUDEN

Assistant Attorney General

___________________________________PAUL CIRINO

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division Environmental Defense Section

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 514-1542 (telephone)

(202) 514-8865 (facsimile)

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Counsel for Respondent

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  3

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  4


[Federal Register: August 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 38481-38482]
[DOCID:fr03au09-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0155]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt twenty-one individuals
from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective August 3, 2009. The exemptions
expire on August 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room W64-224,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also
available at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    On June 12, 2009, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from twenty-one individuals, and
requested comments from the public (74 FR 28097). The public comment
period closed on July 13, 2009, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the twenty-one applicants
and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible.
    The September 3, 2003 Federal Register Notice (68 FR 52441) in
conjunction with the November 8, 2005, Federal Register Notice (70 FR
67777) provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These twenty-one applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 43
years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted
in loss of consciousness or seizure, that required the assistance of
another person, or resulted in impaired cognitive function without
warning symptoms in the past 5 years (with one year of stability
following any such episode). In each case, an endocrinologist has
verified that the driver has demonstrated willingness to properly
monitor and manage their diabetes, received education related to
diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers
report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related
complications. Each meets the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the June 2, 2009, Federal Register
Notice (74 FR 28097). Therefore, they will not be repeated in this
notice.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologist's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the
diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level
of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of

severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage
diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse
event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not they are related to
an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of
the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner
at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each
individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the twenty-one exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts: Eugene L. Bradley, John F. Carruthers, Keith A. Craven,
Jose E. Cruz, Daniel L. Dixon, Michael A. Garufi, Joseph P. Jurewicz
II, Dana N. Larsen, Jason G. Leavitt, Chad M. Morris, Thomas M. Petee,
Jim A. Phelps, Larry R. Price, James F. Rabideau, Jr., Stanley N.
Reneau, Richard D. Ritenour, John E. Spano, Delton N. Stewart, Mark S.
Sundberg, Timothy G. Walls, and Kelly R. Winslow from the ITDM standard
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under
``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: July 24, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-18450 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 162)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49090]
[DOCID:fr20au08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0666; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-6]

Removal of Class E Airspace; Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes the Class E4 Airspace at Chicago, IL as
there is no longer a Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) for
Chicago Aurora Municipal Airport requiring Class E4 airspace.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, November 20, 2008. The Director of
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action
under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the
annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming
amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary A. Mallett, Operations Support
Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The VOR-A Approach Procedure was cancelled removing the Class E4
airspace requirement at Chicago Aurora Municipal Airport in Chicago,
IL. This rule will become effective on the date specified in the DATES
section. Since this action eliminates the impact of controlled airspace
on users of the National Airspace System in the vicinity of Chicago
Aurora Municipal Airport, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are unnecessary. Class E airspace designations for airspace
areas extending upward from the surface of the Earth are published in
Paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and
effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E designation listed in this document will be
removed from publication subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) removes Class E4 airspace at Chicago Aurora Municipal
Airport, Chicago, IL. 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, is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in
adverse or negative comments. 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 so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 removes controlled airspace at Chicago Aurora Municipal Airport,
Chicago, IL.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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(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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From the
Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL IL E4 Chicago, Aurora Municipal Airport [Remove]

* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on: August 6, 2008.
Donald R. Smith,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-19022 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56646-56647]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG22-215-000.
    Applicants: Eastover Solar LLC.
    Description: Eastover Solar LLC submits notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-216-000.
    Applicants: PGR 2021 Lessee 17, LLC.
    Description: PGR 2021 Lessee 17, LLC submits notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2211-008.
    Applicants: Vandolah Power Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Vandolah
Power Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-291-002.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2022-09-08_PSCo Transmission
Formula Rate-Compliance to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2148-001.
    Applicants: Blooming Grove Wind Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Reactive Power Compensation to be
effective 6/18/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2811-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEF-Bartow FMPP FMPA Dynamic
Transfer Agreement RS No. 378 to be effective 11/7/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/7/22.
    Accession Number: 20220907-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2812-000.
    Applicants: New England States Committee on Electricity.
    Description: New England States Committee on Electricity submits
for information a Five-Year Pro Forma Budget for years 2023-2027.
    Filed Date: 9/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220906-5221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2813-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the Membership
Agreement to Revise Sections 1.0 and 4.2 to be effective 11/8/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2814-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Bylaws to
Clarify Membership on the Regional State Committee to be effective 11/
8/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2816-000.
    Applicants: PGR 2021 Lessee 17, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: PGR 2021 Lessee 17, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 10/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2817-000.
    Applicants: Eastover Solar LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Eastover Solar LLC MBR Tariff
to be effective 10/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220908-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/22.

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

    Dated: September 8, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19923 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31237-31241]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14233]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83529; File No. SR-OCC-2018-802]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Advance Notice of and No Objection to The Options
Clearing Corporation's Proposal To Enter Into a New Credit Facility
Agreement

June 27, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing
and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\3\ notice is hereby given that on May 25, 2018, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an advance notice as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by OCC. On
June 26, 2018, OCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the advance
notice from interested persons, and to provide notice that the
Commission does not object to the changes set forth in the advance
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the Initial Filing
in its entirety. The only substantive change in Amendment No. 1 was
to remove OCC's proposal to establish certain ``evergreen''
provisions for future renewals of its revolving credit facility.
Amendment No. 1 did not change the purpose, basis, or terms of the
proposed renewal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    This advance notice is filed in connection with a proposed change
to its operations in the form of the replacement of a revolving credit
facility that OCC maintains for a 364-day term and that it may use (i)
in anticipation of a potential default by or suspension of a Clearing
Member, (ii) to meet obligations arising out of the default or
suspension of a Clearing Member, (iii) to meet reasonably anticipated
liquidity needs for same-day settlement as a result of the failure of
any bank or securities or commodities clearing organization to achieve
daily settlement, or (iv) to meet obligations arising out of the
failure of a bank or securities or commodities clearing organization to
perform its obligations due to its bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership
or suspension of operations.
    All terms with initial capitalization not defined herein have the
same meaning as set forth in OCC's By-Laws and Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: http://optionsclearing.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received. OCC
will notify the Commission of any written comments received by OCC.

(B) Advance Notices Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act

Description of the Proposed Change
Background
    This advance notice is being filed in connection with a proposed
change in the form of the replacement of a revolving credit facility
that OCC maintains for a 364-day term and that it may use (i) in
anticipation of a potential default by or suspension of a Clearing
Member, (ii) to meet obligations arising out of the default or
suspension of a Clearing Member, (iii) to meet reasonably anticipated
liquidity needs for same-day settlement as a result of the failure of
any bank or securities or commodities clearing organization to achieve
daily settlement, or (iv) to meet obligations arising out of the
failure of a bank or securities or commodities clearing organization to
perform its obligations due to its bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership
or suspension of operations (``Permitted Use Circumstances''). In any
such Permitted Use Circumstance, OCC has certain conditional authority
under its By-Laws and Rules to borrow or otherwise obtain funds from
third parties using Clearing Member margin deposits and/or Clearing
Fund contributions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See generally Article VIII, Sections 5(a), (b) and (e) of
OCC's By-Laws; Interpretation and Policy .06 to Article VIII,
Section 5; OCC Rules 1102 and 1104(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's existing credit facility (``Existing Facility'') was
implemented as of June 30, 2017, through the execution of a credit
agreement among OCC, the administrative agent, collateral agent and the
lenders that are parties to the agreement from time to time. The
Existing Facility provides short-term secured borrowings in an
aggregate principal amount of $2 billion but may be increased to $3
billion if OCC so requests and sufficient commitments

from lenders are received and accepted. To obtain a loan under the
Existing Facility, OCC must pledge as collateral U.S. dollars,
securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or the
Government of Canada, Standard & Poor's 500 Market Index equities,
Exchange-Traded Funds (``ETFs''), American Depositary Receipts
(``ADRs'') or certain government-sponsored enterprise debt securities.
Certain mandatory prepayments or deposits of additional collateral are
required depending on changes in the collateral's market value. In
connection with OCC's past implementation of the Existing Facility, OCC
filed an advance notice with the Commission on May 4, 2017, and the
Commission published a Notice of No-Objection on June 30, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81058 (June 30,
2017), 82 FR 31370 (July 6, 2017) (SR-OCC-2017-803).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of the Proposal
    Renewal. The Existing Facility is set to expire on June 29, 2018.
OCC is currently negotiating the terms of a new credit facility (``New
Facility'') on substantially similar terms as the Existing Facility,
and the definitive documentation concerning the New Facility is
expected to be substantially similar to the definitive documentation
concerning the Existing Facility. The proposed terms and conditions
that are expected to be applicable to the New Facility, subject to
agreement by the lenders, are set forth in the Summary of Terms and
Conditions, which is not a public document.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OCC has separately submitted a request for confidential
treatment to the Commission regarding the Summary of Terms and
Conditions, which is included in this filing as Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain administrative changes are presently expected in connection
with the New Facility that include representations, warranties and
covenants related to applicable regulations and the provision of
information by OCC in certain circumstances to the lenders and
administrative agent in connection with regulatory requirements, such
as ``know your customer'' and anti-money-laundering regulations. The
conditions regarding the availability of the New Facility, which OCC
anticipates will be satisfied on or about June 28, 2018, include the
execution and delivery of (i) a credit agreement between OCC and the
administrative agent, collateral agent and various lenders under the
New Facility, (ii) a pledge agreement between OCC and the
administrative agent or collateral agent, and (iii) such other
documents as may be required by the parties. The definitive
documentation concerning the New Facility is expected to be consistent
with the Summary of Terms and Conditions that is provided as Exhibit 3,
although it may include certain changes to business terms as may be
necessary to obtain the agreement of lenders with sufficient funding
commitments and certain changes as may be necessary regarding
administrative and operational terms being finalized between the
parties.
Anticipated Effect on and Management of Risk
    Completing timely settlement is a key aspect of OCC's role as a
clearing agency performing central counterparty services. Overall, the
New Facility would continue to promote the reduction of risks to OCC,
its Clearing Members and the options market in general because it would
allow OCC to obtain short-term funds in the Permitted Use
Circumstances. The existence of the New Facility would therefore help
OCC minimize losses in the event of a Permitted Use Circumstance by
allowing it to obtain funds on extremely short notice to ensure
clearance and settlement of transactions in options and other contracts
without interruption. OCC believes that the reduced settlement risk
presented by OCC resulting from the New Facility would correspondingly
reduce systemic risk and promote the safety and soundness of the
clearing system. By drawing on the New Facility, OCC would also be able
to avoid liquidating margin deposits or Clearing Fund contributions in
what would likely be volatile market conditions, which would preserve
funds available to cover any losses resulting from the failure of a
Clearing Member, bank or other clearing organization.
Consistency With the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
    The stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is to mitigate
systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability
by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for
systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the
liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.\9\
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \10\ also authorizes
the Commission to prescribe risk management standards for the payment,
clearing and settlement activities of designated clearing entities,
like OCC, for which the Commission is the supervisory agency. Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \11\ states that the objectives
and principles for risk management standards prescribed under Section
805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \10\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.
    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and the Act in furtherance of
these objectives and principles.\12\ Rule 17Ad-22 requires registered
clearing agencies, like OCC, to establish, implement, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
meet certain minimum requirements for their operations and risk
management practices on an ongoing basis.\13\ Therefore, the Commission
has stated \14\ that it believes it is appropriate to review changes
proposed in advance notices against Rule 17Ad-22 and the objectives and
principles of these risk management standards as described in Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240. 17Ad-22. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-
08-11) (``Clearing Agency Standards''); 78961 (September 28, 2016),
81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-14) (``Standards for Covered
Clearing Agencies'').
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \14\ See supra note 6.
    \15\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section
805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act \16\ because the New Facility
would provide OCC with continued access to a stable and reliable source
of committed liquidity that can be accessed in a timely manner to meet
its settlement obligations, contain losses and liquidity pressures and
mitigate OCC's liquidity risk. Accordingly, OCC believes the proposed
changes are designed to (i) promote robust risk management; (ii)
promote safety and soundness; and (iii) reduce systemic risks and
promote the stability of the broader financial system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that New Facility also is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act.\17\ Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7) requires OCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively
measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk that arises in or is borne
by OCC, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement
and funding

flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday
liquidity, as specified in the rule.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) under the Act \19\ directs
that OCC meet this obligation by, among other things, ``[m]aintaining
sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all relevant currencies
to effect same-day . . . settlement of payment obligations with a high
degree of confidence under a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios
that includes, but is not limited to, the default of the participant
family that would generate the largest aggregate payment of obligation
for [OCC] in extreme but plausible market conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the New Facility would provide OCC with a
readily available liquidity resource that would enable it to, among
other things, continue to meet its obligations in a timely fashion in a
Permitted Use Circumstance and as an alternative to selling Clearing
Member collateral under what may be stressed and volatile market
conditions. For these reasons, OCC believes that the proposal is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Act requires OCC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to
satisfy payment obligations owed to Clearing Members.\21\ Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(14) of the Act defines ``qualifying liquid resources'' to
include, among other things, lines of credit without material adverse
change provisions, that are readily available and convertible into
cash.\22\ As with the Existing Facility, the New Facility would not be
subject to any material adverse change provision and would continue to
be designed to permit OCC to, among other things, help ensure that OCC
has sufficient, readily-available qualifying liquid resources to meet
the cash settlement obligations of its largest Clearing Member Group.
Therefore, OCC believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(ii).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed changes
are consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
\24\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) \25\ under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accelerated Commission Action Requested
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the Clearing Supervision
Act,\26\ OCC requests that the Commission notify OCC that it has no
objection to the New Facility not later than Tuesday, June 26, 2018,
which is two business days prior to the expected June 28, 2018,
availability of the New Facility. OCC requests Commission action by
this date to ensure that there is no period that OCC operates without
this essential liquidity resource, given its importance to OCC's
borrowing capacity in connection with its management of liquidity and
settlement risk and timely completion of clearance and settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date
any additional information requested by the Commission is received. OCC
shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any
objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60
days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the
proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the
proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed
by the Commission.
    OCC shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are
implemented. The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory
actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance
notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2018-802 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-802. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the advance notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the advance
notice 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 website 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 OCC and on OCC's website at
https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-802 and
should be submitted on or before July 24, 2018.

V. Commission Findings and Notice of No Objection

    Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard
of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To
mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial
stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management
standards for systemically important financial market utilities and
strengthening the liquidity

of systemically important financial market utilities.\27\ Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act authorizes the Commission to
prescribe risk management standards for the payment, clearing, and
settlement activities of designated clearing entities and financial
institutions engaged in designated activities for which it is the
supervisory agency or the appropriate financial regulator.\28\ Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \29\ states that the objectives
and principles for the risk management standards prescribed under
Section 805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \28\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \29\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \31\ and Section 17A of the
Act (``Rule 17Ad-22'').\32\ Rule 17Ad-22 requires registered clearing
agencies to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to meet certain
minimum requirements for their operations and risk management practices
on an ongoing basis.\33\ Therefore, it is appropriate for the
Commission to review changes proposed in advance notices against Rule
17Ad-22 and the objectives and principles of the risk management
standards described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision
Act.\34\ As discussed below, the Commission believes that the proposal
in this advance notice is consistent with the objectives and principles
described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act,\35\ and in
Rule 17Ad-22 under the Act, particularly Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \32\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act

    The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the advance
notice are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision
Act because they: (i) Promote robust risk management; (ii) are
consistent with promoting safety and soundness; and (iii) are
consistent with reducing systemic risks and promoting the stability of
the broader financial system.
    The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the advance
notice are consistent with promoting robust risk management, in
particular management of liquidity risk presented to OCC. Renewing and
maintaining a credit facility for this purpose and in the manner
proposed by OCC would diversify the liquidity resources that OCC may
use to resolve a Member default. As such, the Commission believes that
the proposal would promote robust risk management practices at OCC,
consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the changes proposed in the
advance notice are consistent with promoting safety and soundness. As
described above, the currently proposed credit facility would provide
OCC with an additional liquidity resource in the event of a Member
default. This liquidity would promote safety and soundness for Members
because it would provide OCC with a readily available liquidity
resource that would enable OCC to continue to meet its respective
obligations in a timely fashion in the event of a Member default,
thereby helping to contain losses and liquidity pressures from that
default. As such, the Commission believes it is consistent with
promoting safety and soundness as contemplated in Section 805(b) of the
Clearing Supervision Act.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the proposal contained in
the advance notice is consistent with reducing systemic risks and
promoting the stability of the broader financial system. As mentioned
above, allowing OCC to enter into the currently proposed credit
facility would enable OCC, which has been designated a systemically
important FMU,\39\ to maintain an additional liquidity resource that
OCC may access to help manage a Member default and avoid a gap in
availability of this liquidity resource. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that the proposal would help to reduce the systemic risk of
OCC, which in turn would help to support the stability of the broader
financial system, consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing
Supervision Act.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Financial Stability Oversight Council designated OCC a
systemically important financial market utility on July 18, 2012.
See Financial Stability Oversight Council 2012 Annual Report,
Appendix A, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes associated with
the New Facility are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7) under the Act.\41\ This rule requires that a covered clearing
agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ``effectively measure, monitor, and
manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by [it], including
measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on
an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) directs that a covered
clearing agency meet this obligation by, among other things,
``[m]aintaining sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all
relevant currencies to effect same-day . . . settlement of payment
obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of
foreseeable stress scenarios that includes, but is not limited to, the
default of the participant family that would generate the largest
aggregate payment obligation for the covered clearing agency in extreme
but plausible conditions.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the changes proposed by the advance
notice are consistent with the requirements of Rules 17Ad-22(e)(7)
under the Act.\44\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) requires OCC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage
liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by OCC, including measuring,
monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing
and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity, as specified in
the rule.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) under the Act \46\ requires
that registered clearing agencies establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
``effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that
arises in or is borne by [it], including measuring, monitoring, and
managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely
basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by . . . [m]aintaining
sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all relevant currencies
to effect same-day . . . settlement of

payment obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range
of foreseeable stress scenarios that includes, but is not limited to,
the default of the participant family that would generate the largest
aggregate payment of obligation for the covered clearing agency in
extreme but plausible conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the currently proposed credit facility would
provide OCC with a readily available liquidity resource that would
enable OCC to continue to meet its respective obligations in a timely
fashion in the event of a Member default, thereby helping to contain
losses and liquidity pressures from that default. Additionally, the
currently proposed credit facility would allow OCC to avoid a gap in
liquidity coverage and better allow OCC to continually maintain
sufficient liquidity resources. Therefore, the Commission believes that
the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Act requires OCC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to
satisfy payment obligations owed to clearing members.\47\ Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(14) of the Act defines ``qualifying liquid resources'' to
include, among other things, lines of credit without material adverse
change provisions, that are readily available and convertible into
cash.\48\ As described above, the currently proposed credit facility
would permit OCC to enter into a single credit facility designed to
help ensure that OCC has sufficient, readily-available qualifying
liquid resources to meet the cash settlement obligations of its largest
family of affiliated members. Therefore, the Commission believes that
the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
    \48\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act, that the Commission does not object to the
advance notice SR-OCC-2018-802 and OCC can and hereby is authorized to
implement the change as of the date of this notice.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14233 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 52101]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twelfth Meeting: RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Thirteenth Meeting Notice of RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
thirteenth meeting of the RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 8, 2014 from 9:00 a.m.-3:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Andy
Cebula, NAC Secretary can also be contacted at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 202-
330-0652.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will
include the following:

October 8

 Opening of Meeting/Introduction of NAC Members--Chairman Bill
Ayer, Airlines for America
 Official Statement of Designated Federal Official--The
Honorable Mike Whitaker, FAA Deputy Administrator
 Review and Approval of June 3, 2014 Meeting Summary
 Chairman's Report--Chairman Ayer
 FAA Report--Mr. Whitaker
 Review and Approve Recommendation for Submission to FAA
    [cir] PBN Blue Print Task Group Report
    [cir] Presentation of recommendation: The Blue Print for
Performance-Based Navigation Procedures Implementation
 FAA PBN Video
    [cir] PBN initiatives, highlighting the Houston Metroplex
 NextGen Integration Working Group (NIWG) FAA and Industry
Leaders Overview
    [cir] Discussion of NextGen Integration WG and Future Actions
 Review and Approve Recommendation for Submission to FAA
    [cir] NIWG Individual Team Report-Outs: PBN, Data Comm, Multiple
Runway Operations and Surface
 Interactive Discussion of Relevant Issues Facing the Aviation
Community
 Summary of meeting and next steps
 Other business
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 26, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-20821 Filed 8-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 68157-68158]
[DOCID:fr04de07-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12921-000]

FFP Project 32, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

November 26, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12921-000.
    c. Date Filed: August 6, 2007.
    d. Applicant: FFP Project 32, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Kempe Bend Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in a section of the
Mississippi River in Jefferson County, Mississippi and Tensas Parish,
Louisiana. The project uses no dam or impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Daniel Irvin, FFP Project 32, LLC, 69
Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Ms.
Maureen Winters, Project Manager, Devine Tarbell & Associates, 970
Baxter Boulevard, Portland, ME 04103, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. 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. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12921-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of: (1)
2,700 proposed 20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 54 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line,
(3) a mooring system comprised of either free standing pilings or
existing infrastructure which will anchor the units, and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The FFP Project 32, LLC, project would have an
average annual generation of 236.520 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a
local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    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 ``e-filing'' link. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'',''COMPETING APPLICATION'' OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23443 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P