[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27134-27136]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10495]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91885; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend the Implementation Date of Its Nasdaq Opening Cross Enhancements
to the End of Q2 2021

May 13, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 3, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation date of its
Nasdaq Opening Cross enhancements to the end of Q2 2021.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is filing this proposal to extend the implementation date of
its Nasdaq Opening Cross enhancements to the end of Q2 2021.
    Nasdaq proposed to enhance its Opening Cross by (i) disseminating
abbreviated order imbalance information prior to the dissemination of
the Order Imbalance Indicator, (ii) amending certain cutoff times for
on-open orders entered for participation in the Nasdaq Opening Cross
and (iii) extending the time period for accepting certain Limit On Open
Orders. These changes were filed by Nasdaq on February 10, 2021 [sic],
and published in the Federal Register on February 17, 2021.\3\ The
Commission approved these changes on April 2, 2021.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91096 (February 10,
2021), 86 FR 9972 (February 17, 2021) (NASDAQ-2021-004)
(``Proposal'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91461 (April 2,
2021), 86 FR 18330 (April 8, 2021) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq initially proposed that these changes become operative on
April 26, 2021. Due to additional weekend testing in advance of the
date of launch, Nasdaq has decided to delay the implementation of this
new functionality until the end of Q2 2021. The Exchange will announce
the new implementation date in an Equity Trader Alert at least ten days
in advance of implementing the changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this proposal is to inform the SEC and market
participants of the new implementation date for the Nasdaq Opening
Cross enhancements. These enhancements were proposed in a rule filing
that was submitted to the SEC, and this proposal does not make any
substantive changes to that filing. Nasdaq is delaying the
implementation date to allow for additional weekend testing prior to
implementation.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As explained above, the purpose
of this proposal is to inform the SEC and market participants of the
new implementation date for the enhancements to the Opening Cross, and
the Exchange does not expect the date change to place any burden on
competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately extend
the implementation date for the changes to the Nasdaq Opening Cross to
allow for additional weekend testing prior to implementation. The
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-038 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-038. 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 proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 the Exchange. 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-NASDAQ-2021-038, and should
be submitted on or before June 9, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10495 Filed 5-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 48379]
[DOCID:fr19au08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-80-000]

Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, Complainants, v.
American Electric Power Company, Inc., American Electric Power Service
Corporation, and Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Respondents;
Notice of Complaint

August 12, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 11, 2008, the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission (OCC) filed a formal complaint against American Electric
Power Company, Inc., American Electric Power Service Corporation, and
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (collectively, Respondents) pursuant
to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, and Rule
206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.206. The complaint from the OCC states that allegations have been
made in various OCC proceedings that Respondent's implementation of the
System Integration Agreement Corporation were alleged to be improper in
various OCC proceedings and requests that the Commission review the
allocation decisions applicable to energy trading margins made by
American Electric Power Company, Inc. by and through its agent,
American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    The OCC certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 2, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19122 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER >

<EPA Registration Division contact: [Mary Waller (PM#21),<PHONE_NUMBER>]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green and brackets, i.e., “[insert
company name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[ Isagro S.p.A.]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Isagro S.p.A.], [430 Davis Drive, Suite 240, Morrisville, NC  27560]
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of 	[tetraconazole] in or
on the raw agricultural commodity [Corn: field, forage; field, grain;
field, stover; pop, grain; and pop, stover] at [1.0, 0.01, 1.5, 0.01 and
1.5, respectively] parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism.  [The metabolism of tetraconazole is adequately
understood for the purposes of establishing the proposed tolerances.
Tetraconazole metabolites include 1,2,4-triazole, and two conjugates,
triazolylalanine and triazolyl acetic acid, which are common to most of
the triazole fungicides.  Based on the available metabolism and
toxicology data, parent tetraconazole is proposed to be considered as
the residue of concern in plant and animal matrices.  Tolerances have
previously been approved for many crop and animal matrices.]

>

<	2. Analytical method. [Adequate enforcement methodology (capillary gas
chromatography with electron capture detector (GC/ECD)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression.  The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350. Plus an additional new enforcement
method using LC/MS-MS detection is submitted]>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [For a Field Corn magnitude of residue study
a total of twenty-one (21) residue trials, scattered over 5 residue
regions, were conducted to evaluate the magnitude of the residues of
tetraconazole following one application of Domark 230 ME at the maximum
use rate of 0.091 lbs of active ingredient (ai) per acre.  The raw
agricultural commodities (RACs) harvested and analyzed for residues were
forage, grain and stover.  Forage had a mean residue level of 0.404 ppm
with a minimum residue level of 0.044 ppm and a maximum residue level of
0.907 ppm.  All grain samples had no detectable residue levels even in
5X exaggerated trials with a detection limit of 0.005 ppm.  Stover had a
mean residue level of 0.453 ppm with a minimum residue level of not
detectable (LOD = 0.005 ppm) and a maximum residue level of 1.548 ppm.
Both of the two processing studies at a 5X rate had no detectable
residues in the grain.  The processed fractions were analyzed anyway
with again no detectable residues in any of the fractions (flour, grits,
meal, oil starch).  There were some exaggerated 2X and 5X samples of the
RACs and they had increased residues with the higher rates.  The three
dissipation studies did not show any significant residue decline over
time.  All trials included an adjuvant of either a crop oil concentrate
(COC) or a non-ionic surfactant (NIS).

]>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [Acute oral lethal dose (LD50) = 1,031
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) (toxicity category III); acute dermal LD50 >
2,000 mg/kg (toxicity category III); acute inhalation lethal
concentration (LC50) > 3.66 mg/liter (toxicity category IV); primary eye
irritation – slight eye irritant (toxicity category III); primary skin
irritation – not a dermal irritant (toxicity category IV); and dermal
sensitization – not a dermal sensitizer.]>

<	2. Genotoxicty. [Numerous mutagenicity studies were conducted with
tetraconazole and no genotoxic effects were reported.]>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [A two-generation
reproduction study was conducted in rats at dietary concentrations of 0,
10, 70 or 490 ppm.  The LOAEL for parental toxicity = 70 ppm, equivalent
to 4.9/5.9 (male/female) mg/kg/day based on increased mortality in P
generation females. The NOAEL = 10 ppm, equivalent to 0.7/0.8 (M/F)
mg/kg/day. The LOAEL for off spring toxicity = 490 ppm (40.6 mg/kg/day
from the P generation female intake) based on decreased litter weight
and mean pup weight in litters of all generations before weaning and
increased relative liver weights at weaning in both sexes of all
litters. The NOAEL = 70 ppm (5.9 mg/kg/day). The LOAEL for reproductive
toxicity = 70 ppm, equivalent to 4.9/5.9 (M/F) mg/kg/day based on
increased mean gestation duration in P generation parental females and
related evidence of compound toxicity in the parturition process.  The
NOAEL was 10 ppm (0.7 mg/kg/day for males and 0.8 for females).>

A developmental toxicity study was conducted using rats gavaged with
doses of 0, 5, 22.5, and 100 mg/kg/day from days 2 through 15 of
gestation. The maternal toxicity LOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight gain, and food consumption and increased liver and
kidney weights. The maternal toxicity NOAEL is 22.5 mg/kg/day.
Developmental toxicity was noted at 100 mg/kg/day and consisted of an
increased incidence of small fetuses, and supernumerary ribs. The LOAEL
and NOAEL for developmental toxicity were 100 and 22.5 mg/kg/day,
respectively.

A developmental toxicity study was conducted using rabbits gavaged with
doses of 0, 7.5, 15, or 30 mg/kg/day.  The maternal toxicity NOAEL = 13
mg/kg/day and LOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day, based upon decreased body weight
gain.  The developmental toxicity NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was
not established.]

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Ninety-day feeding studies were conducted in
rats and mice.  The rat study was conduced at dietary concentrations of
0, 10, 60, or 360 ppm.  The NOAEL = 4.1/5.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL
= 23.9/28.7 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based on single liver cell degeneration in
males, and increased SGPT and SGOT, decreased BUN levels, increased
absolute and relative liver weights and presence of hepatocellular
single cell necrosis in females.  The mouse study was conducted at
dietary concentrations of 0, 5, 25, 125, or 625 ppm.  The NOAEL = 4
(M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL = 16/20 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based on single
liver cell degeneration in males, and increased SGPT and SGOT, decreased
BUN levels, increased absolute and relative liver weights and presence
of hepatocellular single cell necrosis in females.]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [A two year combined chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity study was conducted in rats at dietary
concentrations of 0, 10, 80, 640 or 1280 ppm.  The NOAEL = 3.4/4.4 (M/F)
mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL = 27.7/39.4 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based upon
histopathology of the bone (osseous hypertrophy of the cranium/parietal
bone), pale and thickened incisors, and decreased absolute and relative
adrenal and pituitary weights in males; decreased body weight (at
terminal sacrifice) in females.  No treatment-related increases in tumor
incidence were observed.

A 52-week chronic toxicity study was conducted in dogs at dietary
concentrations of 0, 22.5, 90 or 360 ppm.  The NOAEL = 0.73/0.82 (M/F)
mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL = 27.7/39.4 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based upon increased
absolute and relative kidney weights and histopathological changes in
the male kidney.

Carcinogenicity; an 80 week mouse oncogenicity study was conducted at
dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 90, 800, or 1250 ppm.  The NOAEL =
1.4/1.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL = 12/14.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based
upon increased liver weights and hepatocellular vacuolation in both
sexes and increased kidney weights in males.  Treatment-related
increased incidences of combined benign and malignant liver tumors in
both sexes were observed.

]>

<	6. Animal metabolism. [The nature of tetraconazole residues is
adequately understood.  Tetraconazole is extensively metabolized very
quickly and eliminated from the body by fecal and urinary routes.]>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [1,2-4-Triazole is the major metabolite
identified in urine and feces with minor amounts of triazole acid and
alcohol.  The most conservative toxicology endpoint for 1,2,4-triazole
is 15 mg/kg/day, based on body weight decreases in male rats in the
reproductive study.]>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. [Tetraconazole did not have effects on
endocrine organs or tissues, nor were there any indications of effects
on fetal development in either rats or rabbits, or on reproductive
performance in rats.  Therefore, at doses likely to be encountered,
tetraconazole in not likely to be an endocrine disruptor.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [(food and drinking water combined):

a.  Acute risk: Using 100% crop treated, all existing RAC tolerances
plus the presently proposed corn tolerances for residue exposure
assumptions; the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
tetraconazole will occupy < 1.0% of the aPAD for the population group
(females 13 to 49 years old) receiving the greatest exposure.  No acute
toxicity endpoint was identified for the remaining population subgroups.

b.  Chronic risk: Using 100% crop treated for all food commodities,
incorporated empirical processing factors,  average field trial residues
for all crops, and average residues in meat and meat by-products derived
from feeding studies; the exposure to tetraconazole from food and water
will utilize 7.7% of the cPAD for the population group all infants < 1
year old (the most sensitive subpopulation).

c.  Cancer risk:  Using actual and projected percent crop treated
estimates for crops, empirical processing factors plus average field
trial residues for all crops,  and average residues in meat and meat
by-products derived from feeding studies; the estimated cancer risk for
the proposed use of tetraconazole on corn, low growing berry subgroup
13-07G, peanut, pecan, small fruit vine climbing subgroup 13-07F,
soybeans, sugar beet and water  is under 3x10-6.  This aggregate risk is
the sum of the risk from food and water and falls within the Agency's
acceptable risk standard for cancer.

>

<	i. Food. [given above]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [given above]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Tetraconazole is currently not registered
for use on any residential non-food site.  Therefore, residential
exposure to tetraconazole residues will be through dietary exposure
only.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to
tetraconazole and any other substance.  However, the Agency does have
concern about potential toxicity to 1,2,4-triazole and two conjugates,
triazolylalanine and triazolyl acetic acid.  To support the extension of
existing parent triazole-derivative fungicide tolerances, EPA conduced
an interim human health assessment for aggregate exposure to
1,2,4-triazole.   Based on this assessment EPA concluded that for all
exposure durations and population subgroups, aggregate exposures to
1,2,4-triazole are not expected to exceed its level of concern.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [Based on the exposure assumptions described above
and on the completeness of the toxicology database, it can be concluded
that total aggregate exposure from food and water to the U.S. population
and all evaluated population subgroups from tetraconazole exposure from
all proposed uses will be below 100% of the RfDs.  EPA generally has no
concerns for estimated exposures below 100% of the RfD, since the RfD
represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure will not
pose an appreciable risk to human health.  Thus, ISAGRO believes it can
be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to tetraconazole residues for the registered and
proposed uses on grape.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of tetraconazole, the
data from developmental toxicity studies in both the rat and rabbit and
a two generation reproduction study in rats have been considered.  These
toxicity studies indicate the offspring are not more sensitive and all
developmental and reproductive effects were secondary to severe maternal
toxicity. Thus, ISAGRO believes that infants and children are protected
and that an additional uncertainty factor for infants and children is
not warranted.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[Maximum residue levels (MRL) have been established for tetraconazole
in the following countries (in ppm):

Belgium: sugar beet root, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 2.0.

Brazil: apple, 0.4; banana, 0.2; coffee, 0.08; grape, 0.3; mango, 0.1;
soybean, 0.1.

France: apple, 0.2; barley grain, 0.02; grape, 0.2; wine, 0.01; sugar
beet root, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.02.

Italy: apple, 0.5; artichoke, 0.2; barley grain, 0.1; courgette, 0.2;
cucumber, 0.2; grape, 0.5; melon, 0.05; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.2; pepper,
0.2; tomato, 0.2, watermelon, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.05

Portugal: apple, 0.3; grape, 0.2; melon, 0.1; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.3;
strawberry, 0.2; sugar beet root, 0.05.

Spain: apple, 0.2; artichoke, 0.05; cucurbit fruit & edible peel, 0.2;
nectarine, 0.2; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.2; sugar beet leaves, 0.3; sugar
beet root; 0.05; tomato, 0.1.

United Kingdom: barley grain, 0.2; barley straw, 10; oat grain, 0.1; oat
straw, 2; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 5.

Czech Republic: apple, 0.5; grape, 0.05

Hungary: apple, 0.2; grape, 0.5; sugar beet root & leaves, 0.5; sugar
beet root, 0.1; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 3.

Poland: apple, 0.5; cereal grain, 0.05; cereal straw, 3; cucumber edible
peel, 0.2.

Japan: wheat, 0.05; barley; 0.2 other cereal grain, 0.1; sugar beet,
0.5; artichoke, 0.2; tomato, 1; cucumber, 0.5; pumpkin (including
squash), 1; oriental cucurbitaceous vegetables, 0.2; apple, 0.5,
Japanese pear, 0.5, pear, 0.5 quince, 0.5 peach, 0.3, nectarine, 0.2;
apricot, 0.2; Japanese plum (including prune); 0.2; cherry, 0.2;
strawberry, 2; watermelon, 0.2, melon, 0.2; makuwauri, 0.2; grape, 0.5;
tea, 20.

No CODEX maximum residue levels (MRL) have been established for residues
of tetraconazole on any crops at this time.]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76379-76381]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3464; Special Conditions No. 23-272-SC]

Special Conditions: Cirrus Aircraft Corporation, SF50; Auto
Throttle

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Cirrus Aircraft
Corporation Model SF50 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature(s) associated with installation of an Auto
Throttle System. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is December 9,
2015 and are applicable on December 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pretz, Regulations and Policy
Branch, ACE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Room
301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (816)
329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 9, 2008, Cirrus Aircraft Corporation applied for a
type certificate for their new Model SF50. On December 11, 2012 Cirrus
elected to adjust the certification basis of the SF50 to include 14 CFR
part 23 through amendment 62. The SF50 is a low-wing, 7-seat (5 adults
and 2 children), pressurized, retractable gear, carbon composite
airplane with one turbofan engine mounted partially in the upper aft
fuselage. It is constructed largely of carbon and fiberglass composite
materials. Like other Cirrus products, the SF50 includes a
ballistically deployed airframe parachute. The SF50 has a maximum
operating altitude of 28,000 feet and the maximum takeoff weight will
be at or below 6,000 pounds with a range at economy cruise of roughly
1,000 nautical miles.
    Current part 23 airworthiness regulations do not contain
appropriate safety standards for an Auto Throttle System (ATS)
installation; therefore, special conditions are required to establish
an acceptable level of safety. Part 25 regulations contain appropriate
safety standards for these systems, making the intent for this project
to apply the language in Sec.  25.1329 for the auto throttle, while
substituting Sec.  23.1309 and Sec.  23.143 in place of the similar
part 25 regulations referenced in Sec.  25.1329. In addition,
malfunction of the ATS to perform its intended function shall be
evaluated per the Loss of Thrust Control (LOTC) criteria established
under part 33 for electronic engine controls. An analysis must show
that no single failure or malfunction or probable combinations of
failures of the ATS will permit the LOTC probability to exceed those
established under part 33 for an electronic engine control.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Cirrus must show that the
Model SF50 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by
amendments 23-1 through 23-62 thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the SF50 because of a novel or unusual
design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions
of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the SF50 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of
regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the Noise
Control Act of 1972.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The SF50 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
features: An ATS as part of the automatic flight control system. The
ATS utilizes a Garmin ``smart'' autopilot servo with a physical
connection to the throttle quadrant control linkage. The auto throttle
may be controlled by the pilot with an optional auto throttle control
panel adjacent to the throttle lever. The auto throttle also provides
an envelope protection function which does not require installation of
the optional control panel.

Discussion

    Part 23 currently does not sufficiently address auto throttle (also
referred to as auto thrust) technology and safety concerns. Therefore,
special conditions must be developed and applied to this project to
ensure an acceptable level of safety has been obtained. For approval to
use the ATS during flight, the SF50 must demonstrate compliance to the
intent of the requirements of Sec.  25.1329,

applying the appropriate part 23 references to Sec.  23.1309 (to
include performing a functional hazard assessment or system safety
assessment to determine the applicable Software and Airborne Electronic
Hardware assurance levels, and compliance to DO-178C & DO-254, as
required) and Sec.  23.143.
    In addition, a malfunction of the ATS to perform its intended
function is an LOTC event, and may result in a total loss of thrust
control, transients, or uncommanded thrust changes. The classification
of the failure condition for an LOTC event on a Class II single-engine
aircraft is hazardous for aircraft that stall at or below 61 knots.
From publication AC 23.1309-1E, based upon failure probability values
shown in Figure 2, an LOTC event would have to meet a probability of
failure value not to exceed 1 x 10-6. In-service data for
LOTC in single-engine turbine aircraft shows LOTC events exceed this
probability; therefore, part 33 requirements for engine control
probabilities will be accepted for the part 23 LOTC requirement.
    The probabilities of failure for an LOTC event on a turbine engine
shall not exceed the following (see AC33.28-1 and ANE-1993-33.28TLD-R1
for further guidance):

1. Average Events per Million Hours: 10 (1x10-05 per
hour)
2. Maximum Events per Million Hours: 100 (1x10-04 per
hour)

    Note:  The maximum events per flight hour are intended for Time
Limited Dispatch (TLD) operation where the risk exposure is
mitigated by limiting the time in which the aircraft is operated in
the degraded condition.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 23-15-04-SC for the
Cirrus Aircraft Corporation Model SF50 airplanes was published in the
Federal Register on August 21, 2015 (80 FR 50808). No comments were
received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model SF50. Should Cirrus apply at a later date for a change to the
type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel
or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.
    Under standard practice, the effective date of final special
conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the Cirrus
Aircraft Corporation Model SF50 airplane is imminent, the FAA finds
that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon
issuance.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability
and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval
of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704, 14 CFR
21.16 and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Cirrus Aircraft Corporation Model SF50
airplanes.

1. Certification of Auto Throttle System Under Part 23

    a. Quick disengagement controls for the auto thrust functions must
be provided for each pilot. The auto thrust quick disengagement
controls must be located on the thrust control levers. Quick
disengagement controls must be readily accessible to each pilot while
operating the thrust control levers.
    b. The effects of a failure of the system to disengage the auto
thrust functions when manually commanded by the pilot must be assessed
in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  23.1309.
    c. Engagement or switching of the flight guidance system, a mode,
or a sensor may not cause the auto thrust system to affect a transient
response that alters the airplane's flight path any greater than a
minor transient, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section.
    d. Under normal conditions, the disengagement of any automatic
control function of a flight guidance system may not cause a transient
response of the airplane's flight path any greater than a minor
transient.
    e. Under rare normal and non-normal conditions, disengagement of
any automatic control function of a flight guidance system may not
result in a transient any greater than a significant transient, as
defined in paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
    f. The function and direction of motion of each command reference
control, such as heading select or vertical speed, must be plainly
indicated on, or adjacent to, each control if necessary to prevent
inappropriate use or confusion.
    g. Under any condition of flight appropriate to its use, the flight
guidance system may not produce hazardous loads on the airplane, nor
create hazardous deviations in the flight path. This applies to both
fault-free operation and in the event of a malfunction, and assumes
that the pilot begins corrective action within a reasonable period of
time.
    h. When the flight guidance system is in use, a means must be
provided to avoid excursions beyond an acceptable margin from the speed
range of the normal flight envelope. If the airplane experiences an
excursion outside this range, a means must be provided to prevent the
flight guidance system from providing guidance or control to an unsafe
speed.
    i. The flight guidance system functions, controls, indications, and
alerts must be designed to minimize flight crew errors and confusion
concerning the behavior and operation of the flight guidance system.
Means must be provided to indicate the current mode of operation,
including any armed modes, transitions, and reversions. Selector switch
position is not an acceptable means of indication. The controls and
indications must be grouped and presented in a logical and consistent
manner. The indications must be visible to each pilot under all
expected lighting conditions.
    j. Following disengagement of the auto thrust function, a caution
(visual and auditory) must be provided to each pilot.
    k. During auto thrust operation, it must be possible for the flight
crew to move the thrust levers without requiring excessive force. The
auto thrust may not create a potential hazard when the flight crew
applies an override force to the thrust levers.
    l. For purposes of this section, a transient is a disturbance in
the control or flight path of the airplane that is not consistent with
response to flight crew inputs or environmental conditions.
    (1) A minor transient would not significantly reduce safety margins
and would involve flight crew actions that are well within their
capabilities. A minor transient may involve a slight increase in flight
crew workload or some physical discomfort to passengers or cabin crew.
    (2) A significant transient may lead to a significant reduction in
safety

margins, an increase in flight crew workload, discomfort to the flight
crew, or physical distress to the passengers or cabin crew, possibly
including non-fatal injuries. Significant transients do not require, in
order to remain within or recover to the normal flight envelope, any of
the following:
    i. Exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.
    ii. Forces applied by the pilot which are greater than those
specified in Sec.  23.143(c).
    iii. Accelerations or attitudes in the airplane that might result
in further hazard to secured or non-secured occupants.
    It must also be demonstrated, through tests and analysis, that no
single failure or malfunction or probable combinations of failures of
the auto thrust system components results in the probability for LOTC,
or un-commanded thrust changes and transients that result in an LOTC
event, to exceed the following:

(1) Average Events per Million Hours: 10 (1x10-05 per
hour)
(2) Maximum Events per Million Hours: 100 (1x10-04 per
hour)

    Note:  The term ``probable'' in the context of ``probable
combination of failures'' does not have the same meaning as used for
a safety assessment process. The term ``probable'' in ``probable
combination of failures'' means ``foreseeable,'' or those failure
conditions anticipated to occur one or more times during the
operational life of each airplane.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 2, 2015.
Patrick Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-31058 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59111-59112]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2276]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2276, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska and the Cities of Ketchikan and Saxman
         Project: 14-10-0603S Preliminary Date: August 28, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ketchikan Gateway Borough..............  Ketchikan Gateway Borough
                                          Planning and Community
                                          Development Office, 1900 1st
                                          Avenue, Suite 126, Ketchikan,
                                          AK 99901.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-21142 Filed 9-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7193-7194]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2870]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0363; FRL-9265-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas
Processing Plants (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 11,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2010-0363, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Marshall, Office of Compliance,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30813), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0363, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1086.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0120.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2011.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts
KKK & LLL. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a
one-time-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial
performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or
operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 91
hours per response. Burden means the total time,

effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of onshore
natural gas processing plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 563.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, semiannually and occasionally.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 149,180.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $14,335,639, which includes
$13,996,939 in labor costs, $219,000 in capital/startup costs, and
$119,700 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours, or
capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs in this ICR
compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1)
The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth
rate for the industry is very low, negative, or non-existent.
    It should be noted that the wage rates in this ICR have been
updated resulting in an overall increase in the labor cost.

    Dated: February 3, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-2870 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47601-47602]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0016; Notice 2]

Mack Trucks, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mack Trucks, Inc. (MTI), has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2017 Mack heavy duty trucks do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims
and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity
information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds). MTI filed a noncompliance information report dated
February 9, 2017. MTI also petitioned NHTSA on February 28, 2017, and
revised its petition on April 29, 2017, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Kerrin
Bressant, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Mack Trucks, Inc. (MTI), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2017 Mack heavy duty trucks do not fully comply with
paragraph S5.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
120, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer
load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of
more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). MTI filed a noncompliance
report dated February 9, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MTI also petitioned NHTSA on
February 28, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49
CFR part 556, and revised its petition on April 29, 2017, to obtain an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 20, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR
33546). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0016.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 226 MY 2017 Mack Pinnacle,
Granite, TerraPro and LR heavy duty trucks, manufactured between August
15, 2016, and December 12, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: MTI explains that the noncompliance is that the
wheels on the subject vehicles incorrectly identify the rim size as
24.5'' x 8.25'' instead of 22.5'' x 8.25'', and therefore do not meet
the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of FMVSS No. 120. Specifically,
the marking error overstates the wheel diameter by 2''.
    IV. Rule Text: paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 states:

    S5.2 Rim marking. Each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer
in the case of a single-piece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with
the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
paragraph, in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high, impressed
to a depth or, at the option of the manufacturer, embossed to a
height of not less than 0.125 millimeters . . .
    (b) The rim size designation, and in case of multipiece rims,
the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5.

    V. Summary of MTI's Petition: MTI described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, MTI referenced a letter to NHTSA, dated
December 5, 2016, from Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products
(Arconic), which is the rim manufacturer, and provided the following
reasoning:
    1. A 24.5'' inch tire will not seat on the rim; therefore, if
someone tries to mount a 24.5'' tire to the rim, it will not hold air
and therefore cannot be inflated.
    2. When tires are replaced, the technician will select the tire
based on the size and rating of the tire being replaced. When Mack
manufactured the vehicle, the tire used was a 22.5'' (i.e., the correct
size for the rim). Therefore, the tires installed by Mack have the
correct size on the sidewall of the tire.
    3. Mack is required to list the tires size and inflation pressures
on the certification label as required by 49 CFR 567. The information
printed on the label is the correct size, a 22.5'' inch tire and
reflects the tires that were installed when manufactured. The
certification label is located inside the driver's door and can be
easily accessed by the tire installer.
    MTI concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    To view MTI's petition analyses in its entirety you can visit
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID number for this
petition shown in the heading of this notice.

NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA Analysis: MTI explains that the noncompliance is that the
wheels on the subject vehicles incorrectly identify the rim size as
24.5'' x 8.25'' instead of 22.5'' x 8.25'', and therefore do not meet
the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of FMVSS No. 120. Specifically,
the marking error overstates the wheel diameter by 2''.
    NHTSA has reviewed MTI's analyses that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and provides the following
analysis:
    When it comes to mating a tire and rim combination, it becomes very
apparent very quickly that either an oversized tire on a rim or an
undersized tire on the same sized rim will not properly seat to that
rim. In this particular case (the former) as MTI has mentioned in its
petition, if someone tries to mount a 24.5'' inch tire on an undersized
rim (22.5''), it will not hold air and therefore cannot be inflated.
The inability to mount the incorrect tire on the rim precludes one's
ability to actually drive with an incorrect tire-rim combination on
public roadways. Furthermore, FMVSS No. 120 paragraph S5.3 requires
vehicles be labeled with proper tire/rim size combinations. This
additional information is available to provide the vehicle operator or
technician with the correct tire/rim size information.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that MTI has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 120
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, MTI's petition is hereby granted and MTI is consequently
exempted from the obligation to provide notification of, and remedy
for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that MTI no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after MTI notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-22111 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 32642-32644]
[DOCID:fr13jn07-64]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0271; FRL-8129-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Information
Dissemination Toxic Substances Control Act Section 406(b); EPA ICR No.
1669.05, OMB Control No. 2070-0158

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR,
entitled: ``Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Information Dissemination
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 406(b)'' and identified by
EPA ICR No. 1669.05 and OMB Control No. 2070-0158, is scheduled to
expire on February 29, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0271, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention:
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0271. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2007-0271. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only

available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information contact: John Wilkins, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

III. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply
to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
persons who perform renovations of certain types of housing,
constructed prior to 1978, for compensation.
    Title: Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Information Dissemination
TSCA Section 406(b).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1669.05, OMB Control No. 2070-0158.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February
29, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This information collection involves third-party
notification to owners and occupants of housing that will allow these
individuals to avoid exposure to lead-contaminated dust and lead-based
paint debris that are sometimes generated during renovations of housing
where lead-based paint is present, thereby protecting public health.
Since young children are especially susceptible to the hazards of lead,
owners and occupants with children can take action to protect their
children from lead poisonings. Section 406(b) of TSCA requires EPA to
promulgate regulations requiring certain persons who perform
renovations of target housing for compensation to provide a lead hazard
information pamphlet (developed under TSCA section 406(a)) to the owner
and occupants of such housing prior to beginning the renovation. Those
who fail to provide the pamphlet as required may be subject to both
civil and criminal sanctions.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 745, subpart E). Respondents may claim all or part of a
document confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by
a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in
accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 1.2 hours
per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is
only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 2,625,500.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 3,122,486 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $98,568,324. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $89,139,475 and an estimated cost of
$9,428,849 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval?

    There is a net decrease of 339,056 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease primarily reflects EPA's revised
estimates of the number of renovation events in rental housing units.
This change is an adjustment.

V. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce
the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 30, 2007.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. E7-11293 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: September 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 54219-54220]
[DOCID:fr03se10-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the
Requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236

    Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and
49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of
49 CFR part 236, as detailed below.

Docket Number FRA-2010-0134

    Applicant: Mr. James V. Samuelson, Deputy General Manger--Safety &
Training, New Jersey Transit, One Penn Plaza East, Newark, New Jersey
07105-2246.
    The New Jersey Transit (NJT) seeks relief from the 2 year periodic
testing requirements of the Rules, Standards, and Instructions, Title
49 CFR part 236, Sec. Sec.  236.377 Approach Locking, 236.378 Time
Locking, 236.379 Route Locking, 236.380 Indication Locking, and 236.381
Traffic Locking, on vital microprocessor-based systems. NJT proposes to
verify and test signal locking systems controlled by microprocessor-
based equipment by use of alternative procedures every 4 years after
initial baseline testing or program change as follows:
     Verification of the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)/Check
Sum/Universal Control Number (UNC) of the existing location's specific
application logic to the previously tested version.
     Testing the appropriate interconnection to associated
signaling hardware equipment outside the processor (switch indication,
track indication, signal indication, approach locking (if external)) to
verify correct and intended inputs to and outputs from the processor
are maintained.
     Analyzing and comparing the results of the 4 year
alternative testing with the results of the baseline testing performed
at the location and submit the results to FRA.
     All records of locking tests will identify the method used
(i.e., conventional, baseline, or subsequent alternative method).
    Applicant's justification for relief: Many of NJT's interlocking,
controlled points and other locations are controlled by solid-state
vital microprocessor-based systems. These systems utilize programmed
logic equations in lieu of relays and other mechanical components for
control of both vital and non-vital functions. The logic does not
change once a microprocessor-based system has been tested. Locking
tests are documented on installation.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2010-0134) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590.

     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http:// www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 30, 2010.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-22006 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68603-68605]
[DOCID:fr27no06-95]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-465-000]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Jackson Prairie Storage
Project Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

November 15, 2006.
    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 Jackson Prairie Storage
Project Amendment, involving construction and operation of facilities
by Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget) in Lewis County, Washington. The EA
will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether or not to authorize the project.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental 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 December 15, 2006.
    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, Native American Tribes, 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. We encourage government representatives to
notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys

with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with State law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' was attached to the
project notice provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a
number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is
available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Puget proposes to modify two existing observation wells, install a
new 75-horsepower electric-driven compressor, construct about 575 feet
of new 4- to 6-inch-diameter gathering pipelines, and install other
appurtenant facilities at its existing Jackson Prairie Storage Facility
in Lewis County, Washington. Puget seeks authorization of these
facilities in order to recycle gas that has migrated beyond its current
certificated storage boundary. This proposal does not include any
increase in the amount of cushion or working gas currently authorized
at this facility.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Puget's application in Docket No. CP06-465-000 was filed
with the Commission under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Puget requests an amendment to its existing
certificate to revise the total gas level of the storage facility to
recognize a permanent loss of 0.9 billion cubic feet of cushion gas
that has occurred during the facility's 40 years of operation. Puget
further requests amendments to existing certificates, as necessary, to
confirm the approved status of all current well operations at the
storage field and to confirm the facilities certificated zone
boundaries. No environmental disturbance is associated with the revised
cushion and total gas level amendment.
    The existing Jackson Prairie Storage Field interconnects with
Northwest Pipeline Corporation's transmission system which provides
natural gas supplies to markets in the Pacific Northwest. The general
location of Puget's proposed facilities is shown on the map attached as
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 (map), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Two 4-inch-to 6-inch-diameter pipelines would be constructed in
accordance with Puget's proposal. One pipeline would be about 500-feet-
long, with about 120 feet of its length on an existing well pad, and
about 380 feet would be located in a grassy area along an existing
road. Construction would disturb an area about 7-feet-wide along the
road, totaling less than 0.1 acre. An additional 75-foot-long 4-inch-to
6-inch-diameter pipeline would be installed in a well pad located
within the project area of Puget's existing facilities.
    Modifications to the two observation wells would occur entirely
within the existing well pads. The new compressor would be installed in
the existing gas dehydration/compression plant on an existing fenced
gravel pad.

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 will be 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. 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. The EA we will discuss impacts that
could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the
proposed project under these general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
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.
    Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the
EA may be published and mailed to Federal, State, and local government
agencies; public interest groups; Native American tribes; interested
individuals; affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the
Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A 30-day
comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We
will consider all comments submitted in any Commission Order that is
issued for the project.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal (including
alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, 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 1;
     Reference Docket No. CP06-465-000;
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before December 15, 2006.
    Please note that the Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 under the ``eFiling'' link and the link to the User's

Guide.

Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file
comments you will need to create an account by clicking on ``Login to
File'' and then ``New User Account.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a ``Comment on
Filing.''

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor''. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's e-Filing system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must end a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If
you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene
according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the

``eLibrary'' link, select ``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu,
enter the selected date range and ``Docket Number'' (i.e., CP06-465-
000), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.
    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 http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19918 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P