[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 305-306]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1910-017; ER10-1911-017.
    Applicants: Duquesne Power, LLC, Duquesne Light Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Duquesne MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/23/19.
    Accession Number: 20191223-5337.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/13/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2129-014.
    Applicants: Grays Harbor Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Grays Harbor Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/23/19.
    Accession Number: 20191223-5343.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2135-014.
    Applicants: Spindle Hill Energy LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Spindle Hill Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/23/19.
    Accession Number: 20191223-5344.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2384-009; ER10-2383-009; ER14-2820-009 ER14-
2821-009.
    Applicants: Mountain Wind Power, LLC, Mountain Wind Power II LLC,
Spring Canyon Energy II LLC, Spring Canyon Energy III LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis in Northwest region of
the Clearway Energy Group LLC Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20191226-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2596-009; ER12-2200-005.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Mehoopany Wind Energy
LLC.
    Description: Market Power Update for Northeast Region of Fowler
Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/23/19.
    Accession Number: 20191223-5355.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1634-002; ER10-2196-006; ER10-2740-014; ER10-
2742-013; ER13-1141-005; ER13-1142-005; ER13-1143-007; ER13-1144-007;
ER14-152-010; ER15-1657-010; ER16-918-004; ER17-1849-005 ER19-1009-001;
ER19-1633-002; ER19-1638-002 ER19-1793-001; ER19-1795-001; ER19-1796-
001 ER19-1797-001; ER19-1798-001; ER19-1799-001 ER19-902-001; ER20-528-
001.
    Applicants: Bridgeport Energy LLC, Elgin Energy Center, LLC,
Essential Power Massachusetts, LLC, Essential Power Newington, LLC,
Essential Power OPP, LLC, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, Lakewood
Cogeneration, L.P., Lincoln Power, L.L.C., Nautilus Power, LLC, Revere
Power, LLC, Rhode Island State Energy Center, LP, Rocky Road Power,
LLC, Rumford Power LLC, SEPG Energy Marketing Services, LLC, Tilton
Energy LLC, Tiverton Power LLC, Valcour Altona Windpark, LLC, Valcour
Bliss Windpark, LLC, Valcour Chateaugay Windpark, LLC, Valcour Clinton
Windpark, LLC, Valcour Ellenburg Windpark, LLC, Valcour Wethersfield
Windpark, LLC, Valcour Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region
of Bridgeport Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20191226-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-319-001.
    Applicants: Kimball Wind LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Kimball Wind LLC Amended MBR Filing
to be effective 11/6/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191227-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-662-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Various Inactive Agreements
of PacifiCorp.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-686-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Open Access Transmission
Tariff to be effective 3/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20191226-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-687-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance with Order No. 845 to be
effective 3/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191227-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-688-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Service
Agreements to be effective 3/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191227-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-689-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State's Other Member
Agreements #2 to be effective 3/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191227-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-690-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State's Other Member
Agreements #3 to be effective 3/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191227-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-691-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State's Other Member
Agreements #1 to be effective 3/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191227-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/17/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF87-483-006.
    Applicants: AES Hawaii, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change of Qualifying Facility Status, et al.
of AES Hawaii, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20191226-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/16/20.

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

    Dated: December 27, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28398 Filed 1-2-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 17469]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-487-000
    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company
    Description: Stipulation and Agreement RP11-1823 to be effective 1/
1/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20120315-5023
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-488-000
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC
    Description: Occidental Negotiated Rate Agreement to be effective
4/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20120315-5025
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-489-000
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company LLC
    Description: CIG Non-Conforming Agreement Update Filing to be
effective 4/16/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12
    Accession Number: 20120315-5054
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-490-000
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline GP
    Description: NWP 2012 Rates Stipulation and Settlement to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12
    Accession Number: 20120315-5112
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-491-000
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC
    Description: Tenaska Negotiated Rate to be effective 3/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12
    Accession Number: 20120315-5123
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-492-000
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC
    Description: Change of Business Address to be effective 4/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12
    Accession Number: 20120315-5133
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-493-000
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company
    Description: Change of Business Address to be effective 4/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12
    Accession Number: 20120315-5137
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-494-000
    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company
    Description: Change of Business Address to be effective 4/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12
    Accession Number: 20120315-5139
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-495-000
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company
    Description: Change of Business Address to be effective 4/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12
    Accession Number: 20120315-5144
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-496-000
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company
    Description: Non-Conforming OPASA Filing to be effective 4/16/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/16/12
    Accession Number: 20120316-5116
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-497-000
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC
    Description: Negotiated Rate Amendment--Sawgrass to be effective 3/
16/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/16/12
    Accession Number: 20120316-5117
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/12

    Docket Numbers: RP12-498-000
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, LLC
    Description: CEGT LLC--Fuel Tracker Effective May 1, 2012 to be
effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/19/12
    Accession Number: 20120319-5060
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/2/12

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: March 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7141 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46702-46705]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15274]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1501; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00647-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-
500-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report the
engine fire extinguishing control and indication system did not
illuminate correctly. This proposed AD would require installing a
software update to the integrated cockpit control panel (ICCP) remote
data concentrator (RDC), as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which
is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1501; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft
Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; website: tc.canada.ca/en/aviation.
It is also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1501.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Reisenauer, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1501; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00647-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
William Reisenauer, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28, dated May 4, 2023 (Transport
Canada AD CF-2023-28) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model
BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states a deficiency in
the design of the engine fire extinguishing control and indication
system was discovered. After the loss of one hot battery DC bus, the
AVAIL legend on BTL 1 and BTL 2 push button annunciators (PBAs) will
not illuminate green upon pressing the corresponding ENG FIRE PBA. This
condition affects both L ENG FIRE and R ENG FIRE PBAs on the overhead
panel. The misleading indication given by the AVAIL legend on BTL 1 and
BTL 2 PBAs will affect the crew's assessment of the situation. The crew
may hesitate to extinguish an engine fire despite having access to a
functional engine fire extinguishing system, or may reselect the FIRE
PBA, resulting in loss of the ability to isolate and extinguish the
fire.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1501.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28 specifies procedures for installing
the software update to the integrated cockpit control panel (ICCP)
remote data concentrator (RDC) to restore the intended functionality of
the PBA green indications.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28 described previously, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28 by reference
in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require
compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28 in its entirety through
that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions
in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information
required by Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28 for compliance will be
available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1501 after the
FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 76 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                    Parts cost              Cost per product        Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 6 work-hours x $85 per     Up to $7,500.............  Up to $8,010.............  Up to $608,760.
 hour = $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held
by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.):
Docket No. FAA-2023-1501; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00647-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 5, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport
Canada AD CF-2023-28, dated May 4, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-
2023-28).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 26, Fire
protection.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report the engine fire extinguishing
control and indication system did not illuminate correctly. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the misleading indication given by the
AVAIL legend on BTL 1 and BTL 2 Push Button Annunciators (PBAs) that
will affect the crew's assessment of the situation. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in the crew hesitating to
extinguish an engine fire despite having access to a functional
engine fire extinguishing system, or may reselect the FIRE PBA,
resulting in loss of the ability to isolate and extinguish the fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28.

(h) Exceptions to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28

    Where Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28 refers to its effective
date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Airbus Canada
Limited Partnership's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization
(DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact William Reisenauer,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28, dated May 4, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) Transport Canada AD CF-2023-28, contact Transport Canada,
Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra
Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected]; website: tc.canada.ca/en/
aviation.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 13, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-15274 Filed 7-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 3771]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-41-000]

Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville, LLC; Notice of Reopening of
Comment Period

    On November 16, 2018, the Commission issued a notice setting
January 7, 2019, as the end of the formal period to file comments on
the Jacksonville Project draft environmental impact statement. Due to
the funding lapse at certain federal agencies between December 22, 2018
and January 25, 2019, the Commission is reopening the comment period
until February 25, 2019.

    Dated: February 7, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02141 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2816-2818]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0822; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-214, V-285, and V-305, and
Revocation of V-96 in the Vicinity of Kokomo, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airways V-214, V-285, and V-305, and revokes V-96. The FAA is taking
this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of
the Kokomo, IN, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigational aid
(NAVAID). The Kokomo VOR is being decommissioned in support of the
FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with

prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the
route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of
air traffic within the National Airspace System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket
No. FAA-2021-0822 in the Federal Register (86 FR 60421; November 2,
2021), amending VOR Federal airways V-214, V-285, and V-305, and
revoking V-96. The proposed amendment and revocation actions were due
to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Kokomo, IN,
VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal
airways listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA
Order JO 7400.11.

Differences From the NPRM

    Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No.
FAA-2021-1030 in the Federal Register (87 FR 29039; May 12, 2022),
amending VOR Federal airway V-305 by removing the airway segment
between the Walnut Ridge, AR, VORTAC and the Cunningham, KY, VOR/
Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). That airway amendment,
effective July 14, 2022, is included in this rule.
    Also subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket
No. FAA-2021-0972 in the Federal Register (87 FR 38913; June 30, 2022),
amending VOR Federal airway V-285 by removing the airway segment
between the Victory, MI, VOR/DME and the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME. That
airway amendment, effective September 8, 2022, is also included in this
rule.
    Additionally, subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for
Docket No. FAA-2022-0646 in the Federal Register (87 FR 54878;
September 8, 2022), amending VOR Federal airway V-214 by removing the
airway segment between the Martinsburg, WV, VORTAC and the Teterboro,
NY, VOR/DME. That airway amendment, effective November 3, 2022, is also
included in this rule.
    Lastly, in the NPRM, the FAA erroneously stated that, although the
VOR portion of the Kokomo VORTAC was planned for decommissioning, the
co-located DME would be retained. The DME will be decommissioned;
however, the co-located Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) is being
retained to provide navigational service for military operations and
DME service in support of current and future Next Generation Air
Transportation System Performance Based Navigation procedures. This
does not affect the changes to the airways in this rule.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways
V-214, V-285, and V-305, and removing VOR Federal airway V-96 due to
the planned decommissioning of the Kokomo, IN, VOR NAVAID. The VOR
Federal airway actions are described below.
    V-96: V-96 extends between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the
intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 071[deg] and Flag City, OH,
VORTAC 289[deg] radials (TWERP fix). The airway is removed in its
entirety.
    V-214: V-214 extends between the Kokomo, IN, VORTAC and the Muncie,
IN, VOR/DME; and between the intersection of the Appleton, OH, VORTAC
236[deg] and Zanesville, OH, VOR/DME 274[deg] radials (GLOOM fix) and
the Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Kokomo, IN,
VORTAC and the Muncie, IN, VOR/DME is removed. As amended, the airway
is changed to extend between the intersection of the Appleton VORTAC
236[deg] and Zanesville VOR/DME 274[deg] radials (GLOOM Fix) and the
Bellaire VOR/DME.
    V-285: V-285 extends between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the
Victory, MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Brickyard, IN,
VORTAC and Goshen, IN, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is
changed to extend between the Goshen VORTAC and the Victory VOR/DME.
    V-305: V-305 extends between the El Dorado, AR, VOR/DME and the
Walnut Ridge, AR, VORTAC; and between the Cunningham, KY, VOR/DME and
the Kokomo, IN, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Brickyard, IN,
VORTAC and Kokomo, IN, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is
changed to extend between the El Dorado VOR/DME and the Walnut Ridge
VORTAC and between the Cunningham VOR/DME and the Brickyard VORTAC.
    All NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions
below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal
airways V-214, V-285, and V-305, and revoking V-96, due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Kokomo, IN, VORTAC NAVAID,
qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at
40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which
categorically excludes from further environmental impact review
rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas,
airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation
of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes;
and Reporting Points) and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically
excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of
existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change
existing tracks, create

new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on
these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any
potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the
FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-96 [Removed]

* * * * *

V-214 [Amended]

    From INT Appleton, OH, 236[deg] and Zanesville, OH, 274[deg]
radials; Zanesville; to Bellaire, OH.
* * * * *

V-285 [Amended]

    From Goshen, IN; INT Goshen 038[deg] and Kalamazoo, MI, 191[deg]
radials; Kalamazoo; INT Kalamazoo 014[deg] and Victory, MI, 167[deg]
radials; to Victory.
* * * * *

V-305 [Amended]

    From El Dorado, AR; Little Rock, AR; to Walnut Ridge, AR. From
Cunningham, KY; Pocket City, IN; INT Pocket City 046[deg] and
Hoosier, IN, 205[deg] radials; Hoosier; INT Hoosier 025[deg] and
Brickyard, IN, l85[deg] radials; to Brickyard.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 2023.
Brian Konie,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-00823 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7762-7767]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2603]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0692, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297; FRL-9262-8]
RIN 2040-AF08

Drinking Water: Regulatory Determination on Perchlorate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Regulatory determination.

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

SUMMARY: This action presents EPA's (or the Agency's) regulatory
determination for perchlorate in accordance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). Specifically, EPA has determined that perchlorate
meets SDWA's criteria for regulating a contaminant--that is,
perchlorate may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
perchlorate is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that
perchlorate will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at
levels of public health concern; and in the sole judgment of the
Administrator, regulation of perchlorate in drinking water systems
presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons
served by public water systems. Therefore, EPA will initiate the
process of proposing a national primary drinking water regulation
(NPDWR) for perchlorate.

DATES: For purposes of judicial review, the regulatory determination is
issued as of February 11, 2011, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID
numbers EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0692 and EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297. All documents in
these dockets are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet, but will be
publicly available in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Burneson, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division, at (202)
564-5250 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For general information
contact the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    Does this action impose any requirements on my public water
system?
II. Background
    A. What is the purpose of this action?
    B. Background on Perchlorate Regulatory Determinations
    C. What is EPA's final regulatory determination on perchlorate
and what happens next?
III. Final Regulatory Determination for Perchlorate
    A. May perchlorate have an adverse effect on the health of
persons?
    B. Is perchlorate known to occur or is there a substantial
likelihood that perchlorate will occur in public water systems with
a frequency and at levels of public health concern?
    C. Is there a meaningful opportunity for the reduction of health
risks from perchlorate for persons served by public water systems?
    D. Regulatory Determination
    E. Key Commenter Issues
    1. Health Implications of Perchlorate Exposure above the RfD
    2. Other Thyroid Inhibiting Chemicals
    3. Perchlorate in Food
    4. Iodide Nutritional Status
    5. Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling
    F. Next Steps
    IV. References

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CBI--confidential business information
CCL--Contaminant Candidate List
EPA--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR--Federal Register
HRL--health reference level
kg--kilogram
L--liter
MCL--maximum contaminant level
MRL--Minimum Reporting Limit
NOEL--no observed effect level
NPDWR--National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NRC--National Research Council
PBPK--Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic
PWS--public water system
RfD--reference dose
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
UCMR--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
[mu]g--microgram (one-millionth of a gram)
U.S.--United States

I. General Information

Does this action impose any requirements on my public water system?

    Today's action notifies interested parties of EPA's determination
to regulate perchlorate, but imposes no requirements on public water
systems (PWSs). However, this action also initiates the process to
develop a national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) for
perchlorate. At such time as the Agency establishes an NPDWR, certain
PWSs will be required to take action to comply with the regulation in
accordance with the schedule specified in the regulation.

II. Background

A. What is the purpose of this action?

    The purpose of today's action is to present EPA's final
determination to regulate perchlorate in drinking water, the rationale
EPA used to make this regulatory determination, and EPA's response to
certain key issues raised by commenters on previous Federal Register
(FR) notices on the drinking water regulatory determination for
perchlorate. (All comments are addressed in a Response to Comments
document that is available in EPA's docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297
for this regulatory determination.)

B. Background on Perchlorate Regulatory Determinations

    The statutory and regulatory background for this action is
described in detail in the October 10, 2008, FR notice discussing EPA's
preliminary regulatory determination for perchlorate (73 FR 60262;
USEPA 2008a). Briefly, SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(A), as amended in 1996,
requires EPA to make a determination whether to regulate at least five
contaminants from its Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) every five
years. To regulate a contaminant in drinking water, EPA must determine
that it meets three criteria: (1) The contaminant may have an adverse
effect on the health of persons; (2) the contaminant is known to occur
or there is a substantial likelihood that the

contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at
levels of public health concern; and (3) in the sole judgment of the
Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful
opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public
water systems. Once EPA makes a determination to regulate a contaminant
in drinking water, SDWA requires that EPA issue a proposed NPDWR within
24 months and a final NPDWR within 18 months of proposal.
    EPA included perchlorate on the first, second, and third CCLs that
were published in the Federal Register on March 2, 1998 (63 FR 10273;
USEPA 1998), February 24, 2005 (70 FR 9071; USEPA 2005a), and October
8, 2009 (74 FR 51850; USEPA 2009a), respectively. On May 1, 2007, EPA
published an update on the Agency's evaluation of perchlorate as part
of the preliminary regulatory determination for 11 other CCL 2
contaminants (72 FR 24016; USEPA 2007). The Agency did not make a
preliminary determination for perchlorate as part of this regulatory
determination, but requested public comment on the options that the
Agency was evaluating for perchlorate and requested information that
could assist the Agency in its regulatory determination. EPA received
eight comment letters in response to the May 2007 document (72 FR
24016; USEPA 2007) that addressed perchlorate. Public comments on the
May 2007 document can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0068).
    On October 10, 2008, EPA published a preliminary regulatory
determination for perchlorate (73 FR 60262; USEPA 2008a), requesting
public comment on its determination that perchlorate did not occur with
a frequency and at levels of public health concern and regulation of
perchlorate did not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction for persons served by public water systems (the second and
third criteria for regulating a contaminant under SDWA). The October
2008 notice describes in detail EPA's basis for its preliminary
determination not to develop an NPDWR for perchlorate (73 FR 60262;
USEPA 2008a). The Agency received nearly 33,000 comment letters on the
October 2008 notice. Public comments on the October 2008 notice and
supporting materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0692).
    On August 19, 2009, EPA published the Perchlorate Supplemental
Request for Comments (74 FR 41883; USEPA 2009b) requesting comment on
additional approaches to analyzing data related to EPA's perchlorate
regulatory determination. These additional comments were sought in an
effort to ensure consideration of all potential options for evaluating
whether there is a meaningful opportunity for human health risk
reduction of perchlorate through a NPDWR. EPA stated that the
alternative analyses presented in this notice could lead the Agency to
make a determination to regulate perchlorate. EPA received over 6,000
comments on the August 2009 notice.
    EPA has evaluated the approximately 39,000 public comments received
on the May 2007 document, the October 2008 notice, and August 2009
notice. EPA has prepared a response to comment document that addresses
the comments related to the perchlorate regulatory determination
(USEPA, 2010a). This response to public comment document, the public
comments on the August 2009 notice, and supporting materials are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297).

C. What is EPA's final regulatory determination on perchlorate and what
happens next?

    After careful review and consideration of public comments on the
May 2007, October 2008, and August 2009 notices, the Agency has made a
determination to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. EPA has found
that perchlorate may have an adverse effect on human health. EPA has
reversed its October 2008 preliminary determination not to develop an
NPDWR for perchlorate and now concludes, based on the analysis
presented in this regulatory determination, that there is a substantial
likelihood that perchlorate will occur in public water systems with a
frequency and at levels of public health concern. Finally, EPA has
determined that regulation of perchlorate presents a meaningful
opportunity to reduce health risk for persons served by public water
systems.
    EPA is initiating the development of a proposed NPDWR for
perchlorate. EPA intends to publish a proposed regulation and analyses
required by SDWA for public review and comment within 24 months of this
regulatory determination. EPA will consider the public comments and
expects to promulgate a final regulation within 18 months of the
proposal.

III. Final Regulatory Determination for Perchlorate

    In making final regulatory determinations, EPA uses the criteria
mandated by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. Specifically, EPA has found that
perchlorate may have an adverse effect on the health of persons, that
perchlorate occurs or there is a substantial likelihood that
perchlorate will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at
levels of public health concern, and that regulation of perchlorate in
drinking water systems presents a meaningful opportunity for health
risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.

A. May perchlorate have an adverse effect on the health of persons?

    Yes. The perchlorate anion is biologically significant specifically
with respect to the functioning of the thyroid gland. Perchlorate can
interfere with the normal functioning of the thyroid gland by
inhibiting the transport of iodide into the thyroid, resulting in a
deficiency of iodide in the thyroid. Perchlorate inhibits (or blocks)
iodide transport into the thyroid by chemically competing with iodide,
which has a similar shape and electric charge. The transfer of iodide
from the blood into the thyroid is an essential step in the synthesis
of thyroid hormones. The thyroid hormones play an important role in the
regulation of metabolic processes throughout the body and are also
critical to developing fetuses and infants, especially with respect to
brain development. Because the developing fetus depends on an adequate
supply of maternal thyroid hormone for its central nervous system
development during the first and second trimester of pregnancy, iodide
uptake inhibition from low-level perchlorate exposure has been
identified as a concern in connection with increasing risk of
neurodevelopmental impairment in fetuses of hypothyroid mothers. Poor
iodide uptake and subsequent impairment of the thyroid function in
pregnant and lactating women have been linked to delayed development
and decreased learning capability in their infants and children (NRC,
2005). Additionally, deficiency during childhood reduces child growth
and cognitive motor function (Zimmerman, 2009). Therefore, EPA finds
that perchlorate may have an adverse effect on the health of persons.

B. Is perchlorate known to occur or is there a substantial likelihood
that perchlorate will occur in public water systems with a frequency
and at levels of public health concern?

    Yes. EPA has determined that perchlorate occurs or there is a
substantial likelihood that perchlorate will occur with a frequency and
at

levels of health concern in public water systems. EPA has made this
determination by comparing the best available data on the occurrence of
perchlorate in PWSs to potential health reference levels (HRLs) for
perchlorate. HRLs are not final determinations about the level of a
contaminant in drinking water that is necessary to protect any
particular population. Rather they are benchmarks against which EPA
compares the concentration of a contaminant found in public water
systems to determine if it is at levels of public health concern.
    In January 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) published
``Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion,'' a review of the state
of the science regarding potential adverse health effects of
perchlorate exposure and mode of action for perchlorate toxicity (NRC,
2005). The NRC recommended that EPA use data from the Greer et al.
(2002) human clinical study as the basis for deriving a reference dose
for perchlorate (NRC, 2005). Although the NRC committee concluded that
hypothyroidism is the first adverse effect in the continuum of effects
of perchlorate exposure, NRC recommended that ``the most health-
protective and scientifically valid approach'' was to base the
perchlorate RfD on the inhibition of iodide uptake by the thyroid,
which the NRC considered a non-adverse effect (NRC, 2005). The NRC
recommended that EPA apply an intraspecies uncertainty factor of 10 to
the no observed effect level (NOEL),\1\ to account for differences in
sensitivity between the healthy adults in the Greer et al., (2002)
study and the most sensitive population, fetuses of pregnant women who
might have hypothyroidism or iodide deficiency. They viewed this as
conservative and protective of health given that the NOEL is based on a
non-adverse effect (iodide uptake inhibition), which precedes the
adverse effect in a continuum of possible effects of perchlorate
exposure. The NRC also noted that ``any decrease (in thyroid hormone)
is potentially more likely to have adverse effects in sensitive
populations (people with thyroid disorders, pregnant women, fetuses,
and infants). EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) adopted
the NRC's recommendations resulting in an RfD of 0.7 [mu]g/kg/day
(USEPA, 2005b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ No observed effect level (NOEL)--an exposure level at which
there are no statistically or biologically significant increases in
the frequency or severity of any effect between the exposed
population and its appropriate control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 2008 preliminary regulatory determination, EPA had
derived a single HRL of 15 [mu]g/L based upon the RfD, an estimate of
perchlorate exposure from food for pregnant women, and traditional
adult body weight (70 kg) and drinking water consumption (2 L/day)
values. This single HRL was derived to reflect exposure to a pregnant
woman and her fetus, which the NRC identified as ``the most sensitive
population.''
    Since the NRC also identified infants and developing children as
additional life stages, EPA derived potential alternative HRLs for 14
life stages (age groups) using the RfD and life stage-specific exposure
information in the August 9, 2009, notice (74 FR 41883; USEPA 2009b).
These levels range from 1 [mu]g/L to 47 [mu]g/L and are the
concentrations of perchlorate in drinking water that may result in
total perchlorate exposures (from food and water) greater than the RfD
for individuals at each life stage. These HRLs are calculated based on
individuals who consume an average amount of perchlorate from food
(except for pregnant women where EPA used a 90th percentile dietary
intake estimate), but who consume equal or more water on a per body
weight basis than 90 percent of their cohorts. EPA is evaluating these
potential alternative HRLs and considers them to be levels of public
health concern for purposes of this determination. EPA has compared
these values to the data provided by PWSs subject to the first
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1). EPA collected and
analyzed drinking water occurrence data for perchlorate from 3,865 PWSs
between 2001 and 2005 under the UCMR 1. The minimum reporting level
(MRL) for perchlorate under the UCMR 1 was 4 [mu]g/L.
    EPA found that 160 (approximately 4.1 percent) of the 3,865 PWSs
that sampled and reported had at least 1 analytical detection of
perchlorate (in at least 1 sampling point) at levels greater than or
equal to the MRL of 4 [mu]g/L. These 160 PWSs are located in 26 States
and 2 territories. Of these 160 PWSs, 8 are systems serving 10,000 or
fewer people and 152 are systems serving more than 10,000 people. These
160 systems reported 637 detections of perchlorate at levels greater
than or equal to 4 [mu]g/L, which is approximately 11.3 percent of the
5,629 samples collected by these 160 PWSs and approximately 1.9 percent
of the 34,331 samples collected by all 3,865 PWSs. The average
concentration of perchlorate for those samples with positive detections
for perchlorate was 9.85 [mu]g/L and the median concentration was 6.40
[mu]g/L.
    Table 1 presents the number and percentage of PWSs that reported
perchlorate at levels exceeding various threshold concentrations. Note
that the MRL for perchlorate under the UCMR 1 was 4 [micro]g/L.

           Table 1--Percent Public Water System Estimates for Perchlorate Above Thresholds of Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         PWSs with at least 1        PWS entry or sample points
            Threshold concentration \a\                detection > threshold of     with at least 1 detection  >
                                                               interest              threshold of interest \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 [micro]g/L......................................                          4.0%                           2.5%
                                                                  (155 of 3,865)                (371 of 14,987)
6 [micro]g/L......................................                          2.5%                           1.5%
                                                                   (97 of 3,865)                (219 of 14,987)
9 [micro]g/L......................................                          1.5%                          0.77%
                                                                   (56 of 3,865)                (115 of 14,987)
13 [micro]g/L.....................................                         0.93%                          0.37%
                                                                   (36 of 3,865)                 (56 of 14,987)
14 [micro]g/L.....................................                         0.85%                          0.32%
                                                                   (33 of 3,865)                 (48 of 14,987)
19 [micro]g/L.....................................                         0.62%                          0.20%
                                                                   (24 of 3,865)                 (30 of 14,987)

23 [micro]g/L.....................................                         0.39%                          0.13%
                                                                   (15 of 3,865)                 (19 of 14,987)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All occurrence measures in this table were conducted on a basis reflecting values greater than the listed
  thresholds. Five systems detected perchlorate levels equal to 4 [micro]g/L and are therefore not presented in
  this table.

    Given the range of potential alternative HRLs, EPA has reversed its
October 2008 preliminary determination not to regulate perchlorate in
drinking water. Based on the data in Table 1 and the range of potential
alternative HRLs, EPA has determined that perchlorate is known to occur
or there is a substantial likelihood that it will occur with a
frequency and at levels of public health concern.

C. Is there a meaningful opportunity for the reduction of health risks
from perchlorate for persons served by public water systems?

    Yes. EPA has made this determination based on a consideration of
the best available peer reviewed science and data collected in
accordance with accepted methods related to perchlorate occurrence in
drinking water, the presence of perchlorate in foods, and the potential
health effects of exposure to perchlorate.
    Table 2 presents EPA's estimates of the population served by PWSs
that were monitored under UCMR 1 for which the highest reported
perchlorate concentration was greater than the thresholds identified in
Table 1. EPA has determined that a NPDWR for perchlorate could reduce
perchlorate exposures for these populations to levels below the
potential alternative HRLs that EPA has identified as levels of public
health concerns for purposes of this determination, and that such
exposure reductions present a meaningful opportunity for the reduction
of health risks for persons served by PWSs.
    Specifically, Table 2 presents EPA's estimates of the population
served by PWSs that were monitored under UCMR 1 for which the highest
reported perchlorate concentration was greater than the thresholds
identified in Table 1. The second column of Table 2 presents a range of
estimates of the population served by PWSs that had at least one sample
with perchlorate concentrations greater than the threshold. The
population range represents both a high end estimate, as well as a
central value estimate. These population estimates were derived using
the UCMR 1 monitoring data. The high end estimate of the population
served drinking water above a threshold is derived by adding the entire
system population of all PWSs in which at least one sample was found to
contain perchlorate above the threshold. EPA considers this a high end
estimate because it is based on the assumption that the entire system
population is served water from the entry point that had the highest
reported perchlorate concentration. In fact, many PWSs have multiple
entry points into which treated water is pumped for distribution to
their consumers. For the PWSs with multiple entry points, it is
unlikely that the entire service population receives water from the one
entry point with the highest single concentration. Therefore, EPA also
provides a central value estimate of the population served water with
perchlorate above a threshold in the second column in Table 2. EPA
developed this central value estimate by assuming the population was
equally distributed among all entry points and added only the
proportion of the total population served by those entry points in a
PWS that had at least one sample with perchlorate concentrations
greater than the threshold. For example, if a PWS with 10 entry points
serving 200,000 people had a sample from a single entry point with a
concentration at or above a given threshold, EPA assumed that the entry
point served one-tenth of the PWS population, and added 20,000 people
to the total when deriving the central value population estimate. In
contrast, for the high end estimate using the example above, EPA added
the entire PWS population of 200,000 to the total population. The
latter is likely an overestimate. The UCMR 1 population estimates in
Table 2 are for people at all life stages.

 Table 2--Population Estimates for PWSs That Detected Perchlorate Above
                           Various Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Range of population
                                                  served by PWSs with at
                 Threshold \a\                     least 1 detection  >
                                                 threshold \b\ (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 [micro]g/L...................................                 5.1-16.6
6 [micro]g/L...................................                 3.0-11.8
9 [micro]g/L...................................                  1.6-5.2
14 [micro]g/L..................................                  0.9-2.1
19 [micro]g/L..................................                  0.7-1.6
23 [micro]g/L..................................                  0.4-1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All occurrence measures in this table were conducted on a basis
  reflecting values greater than the listed thresholds. All population
  estimates in this table are rounded.
\b\ Population estimates are derived from UCMR 1 data.

D. Regulatory Determination

    EPA has determined that perchlorate meets the criteria for
regulating a contaminant in Section 1412(b)(1)(A) of SDWA. As
previously discussed in this regulatory determination, perchlorate may
have an adverse effect on the health of persons and perchlorate is
known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that perchlorate
will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of
public health concern. Moreover, in light of the discussion in this
regulatory determination and the information available at this time,
the Administrator finds that regulation of perchlorate in drinking
water systems presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction for persons served by public water systems. Therefore, EPA
will initiate the process of proposing a NPDWR for perchlorate.

E. Key Commenter Issues

    EPA received a total of approximately 39,000 comments from
individuals or organizations on the May 2007 document, and the October
2008, and August 2009 Federal Register notices regarding the
perchlorate regulatory determination. This section briefly discusses a
number of the key issues raised by commenters and EPA's response to
these concerns. Responses

to all of the comments received are available in the ``Comment Response
Document for the Final Regulatory Determination on Perchlorate''
(USEPA, 2010a) available at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297).
1. Health Implications of Perchlorate Exposure Above the RfD
    EPA received comments indicating that the levels of perchlorate in
drinking water that result in exposures greater than the RfD are not
levels of public health concern because the RfD is based on a precursor
to an adverse effect. EPA believes the NRC appropriately based the RfD
on iodide uptake inhibition to the thyroid, for the reasons discussed
in its report. EPA also received a substantial number of comments
supporting the Agency's current view. EPA notes that the data
underlying the definition of iodide uptake inhibition as a precursor
effect and the relationship of iodide uptake inhibition to the
continuum of adverse outcomes reflects an understanding of effects in
adults; it may not reflect the relationship of the precursor event to
adverse outcomes in neonates and infants, who may not have iodide
stores sufficient to offset the effects of reduced iodide uptake. The
less resilient neonatal and infant system makes the exposure gap
between a precursor event (iodide uptake inhibition due to perchlorate)
and reduced T3/T4 levels likely to be narrower than for adults, and in
fact, the distinction between the two may be blurred for the very young
(Greer et al., 2002; Savin et al., 2003; van den Hove et al., 1999).
The NRC noted that, ``[T]he minimal prolonged decrease in thyroid
hormone production that would be associated with adverse health effects
is not known; any decrease is potentially more likely to have adverse
effects in sensitive populations (people with thyroid disorders,
pregnant women, fetuses, and infants) but data are not available to
determine the magnitude of the decrease needed to cause adverse effects
in those populations.''
2. Other Thyroid Inhibiting Chemicals
    EPA received a number of comments that the Agency should consider
the comparative effect on iodine uptake of perchlorate exposure in
drinking water to nitrate and thiocyanate exposure in drinking water in
determining whether there is a meaningful opportunity for risk
reduction. Other commenters, including EPA's Office of Inspector
General (USEPA, 2008c), believe that a NPDWR for a group of chemicals
may be appropriate based on a yet-to-be-conducted cumulative risk
assessment that assesses and characterizes the combined human health
risk from perchlorate, nitrate, and thiocyanate.
    While EPA acknowledges that nitrate and thiocyanate have the same
mode of action as perchlorate, and that the effects of combined
exposure to perchlorate, nitrate, and thiocyanate are additive, EPA
does not believe there are sufficient scientific data currently
available to assess and characterize the combined risk of these
contaminants. EPA has committed to a drinking water strategy that
outlines four principles to expand public health protection for
drinking water (USEPA, 2010b). One of these principles is to address
contaminants as groups. However, EPA does not believe that regulatory
action to address perchlorate should be further delayed. Therefore, EPA
intends to develop a proposed rule for perchlorate. At such time as a
NPDWR is promulgated, EPA is required to review and revise, as
appropriate, its drinking water standards at least every six years. Any
revision must at least maintain or improve public health protection.
When there are sufficient scientific data to assess the cumulative
risks of perchlorate and other contaminants, EPA will review this
information to evaluate whether any revisions of NPDWRs are
appropriate.
3. Perchlorate in Food
    A commenter wrote that a drinking water regulation for perchlorate
does not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction
because perchlorate contamination in food is widespread. Other
commenters indicated that EPA should regulate perchlorate in drinking
water to reduce the public's overall exposure to perchlorate. EPA
agrees that perchlorate contamination is more widespread in foods than
in PWSs; however, EPA does not believe that the widespread presence of
perchlorate in food overrides the need for public health risk reduction
for persons served by PWSs with perchlorate contamination. The Agency
presented an extensive evaluation of dietary exposure to perchlorate in
the October 2008 and August 2009 notices (73 FR 60262; USEPA 2008a and
74 FR 41883; USEPA 2009b). EPA has used this dietary exposure data to
account for the relative source contribution (RSC) of perchlorate from
food to estimate the range of levels of public health concern. EPA
recognizes that a drinking water regulation would not eliminate total
perchlorate exposure, but believes that the reduction in perchlorate
exposure in drinking water presents a meaningful opportunity for health
risk reduction for persons served by PWSs contaminated by perchlorate.
4. Iodide Nutritional Status
    Some commenters stated that public health concerns over iodide
uptake inhibition could be addressed more efficiently through promotion
of iodide nutrition than through regulation of perchlorate. EPA agrees
that promoting iodide nutrition is good public health policy and may
have a positive influence in reducing the iodide uptake inhibition
effects associated with exposure to perchlorate. However, the Agency
does not think it is appropriate to rely on the promotion of iodide
nutrition in this case, especially since these activities are outside
of EPA's SDWA authority. As a result, while the health concerns
associated with perchlorate may be addressed through other means, it is
the Administrator's judgment that a standard limiting perchlorate in
drinking water can reduce health risk, particularly to fetuses, infants
and children.
5. Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling
    EPA reviewed, modified, and applied the perchlorate PBPK models,
which were originally developed by Merrill et al. (2005) for adults and
Clewell et al. (2007) for other life stages, to estimate the iodide
uptake inhibition in the thyroid for each life-stage (73 FR 60262;
USEPA 2008a). Estimated ingestion rates were then used to estimate the
internal dose and resulting iodide uptake inhibition for several life
stages, including susceptible populations (e.g., pregnant women and
their fetuses, as well as breast-fed and bottle-fed infants).
    In the August 2009 notice, EPA stated that it was re-evaluating how
best to incorporate the PBPK modeling analysis into its evaluation of
perchlorate--if at all. The Agency sought comments on ways to use the
PBPK modeling analysis to inform the regulatory determination.
    Several commenters supported the use of the PBPK model to inform
the regulatory determination only if the significant limitations of the
current model are addressed. For example, the inability of the model to
reflect iodide nutritional status was cited by commenters and three of
four peer reviewers as an important limitation (USEPA, 2008d). Also,
several commenters stated that the risks to breast-fed infants and
young children are not adequately addressed by the model. They
challenged that the modeling analysis is based on average weight
infants and healthy adults, while the sensitive life stages for
perchlorate

include premature infants and hypothyroid women.
    After further consideration of the peer review and public comments,
EPA concludes that the PBPK modeling analysis, in the context of the
perchlorate regulatory determination, is useful in examining which life
stages are most susceptible to the effects of perchlorate. For example,
the model indicates that a fetus may be seven times more sensitive to
the effects of perchlorate than a pregnant woman. The model also allows
for the estimation of the concentration of perchlorate in breast milk
(thus breast-fed infant exposure) at various maternal perchlorate
exposure levels. However, because of the stated limitations, EPA has
decided the model does not directly bear on the current decision
regarding the need for a NPDWR for perchlorate. EPA is continuing to
evaluate whether the model could be used in setting a NPDWR for
perchlorate.

F. Next Steps

    EPA is initiating the development of a proposed NPDWR for
perchlorate. However, this is not the end of a decision process but a
middle step in a process that leads to a final drinking water standard.
Based on this decision, EPA intends to publish a proposed NPDWR for
public review and comment within 24 months of this regulatory
determination.\2\ EPA will continue to evaluate the science as we
develop the proposed NPDWR. EPA will, as part of the proposed NPDWR,
present a health risk reduction and cost analyses, an analysis of
feasible treatment methods, and an analysis of small system compliance
technologies. EPA will also consult with the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council, the Science Advisory Board, and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, as required under SDWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On January 8, 2009, EPA issued an interim health advisory to
provide guidance to State and local officials in their efforts to
address perchlorate contamination. The interim health advisory
(USEPA, 2008e) can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/unregulated/pdfs/healthadvisory_perchlorate_interim.pdf and in EPA's docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297 for this
notice. EPA expects to make a final decision on the interim health
advisory at such time as a definitive decision has been made with
respect to the promulgation of a final perchlorate regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. References

Clewell, R.A., E.A. Merrill, J.M. Gearhart, P.J. Robinson, T.R.
Sterner, D.R. Mattie, and H.J. Clewell, III. 2007. Perchlorate and
radioiodide kinetics across life stages in the human: Using PBPK
models to predict dosimetry and thyroid inhibition and sensitive
subpopulations based on developmental stage. Journal of Toxicology
and Environmental Health. Part A. Vol. 70. Issue 5. p. 408-428.
Greer, M.A., G. Goodman, R.C. Pleuss, and S.E. Greer. 2002. Health
effect assessment for environmental perchlorate contamination: The
dose response for inhibition of thyroidal radioiodide uptake in
humans. Environ Health Perspect Vol. 110. p. 927-937.
Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO), Federation of American Studies
for Experimental Biology Prepared for the Interagency Board for
Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research. 1995. Third Report on
Nutrition Monitoring in the United States: Volume 1. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Merrill, E.A., R.A. Clewell, P.J. Robinson, A.M. Jarabek, T.R.
Sterner, and J.W. Fisher. 2005. PBPK model for radioactive iodide
and perchlorate kinetics and perchlorate-induced inhibition of
iodide uptake in humans. Toxicological Sciences. Vol. 83. p. 25-43.
National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Health Implications of
Perchlorate Ingestion. National Academies Press, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology. January 2005. p. 276.
Savin, S., D. Dvejic, O. Nedic, R. Radosavljevic. 2003. Thyroid
Hormone Synthesis and Storage in the Thyroid Gland of Human
Neonates. J. Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism. Vol. 16. p. 521-
528.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. U.S. Census Bureau Annual Estimates of
Resident Population by Single-Year of Age and Sex for the U.S. and
States: April 2, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/.
USEPA. 1998. Announcement of the Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 40. p. 10273,
March 2, 1998.
USEPA. 2004. Estimated Per Capita Water Ingestion and Body Weight in
the United States--An Update. Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC; EPA/822/R-00-001.
USEPA. 2005a. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 2; Final
Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 70, No. 36. p. 9071, February 24,
2005.
USEPA. 2005b. ``Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
Perchlorate and Perchlorate Salts.'' February 2005. Available on the
Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1007.htm. Accessed
February 2, 2005.
USEPA. 2007. Drinking Water: Regulatory Determinations Regarding
Contaminants on the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List--Preliminary Determinations, Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 83.
p. 24016, May 1, 2007.
USEPA. 2008a. Drinking Water: Preliminary Regulatory Determination
on Perchlorate, Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 198. p. 60262,
October 10, 2008.
USEPA. 2008b. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-06/
096F.
USEPA. 2008c. Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate (External Review
Draft). Office of Inspector General, Washington, DC; Assignment No.
2008-0010. Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/20100419-10-P-0101.pdf.
USEPA. 2008d. Comment Response Summary Report, Peer Review of
Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perchlorate. Office of Science
and Technology, Washington, DC; December 2008.
USEPA. 2008e. Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory for
Perchlorate. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC; EPA
822-R-08-025.
USEPA. 2009a. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3--Final.
Federal Register. Vol. 74, No. 194. p. 51850, October 8, 2009.
USEPA. 2009b. Drinking Water: Perchlorate Supplemental Request for
Comments, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 159. p. 41883, August 19,
2009.
USEPA. 2010a. Comment Response Document for the Final Regulatory
Determination on Perchlorate (Categorized Public Comments). EPA XXX-
XXX. December, 2010.
USEPA. 2010b. A New Approach to Protecting Drinking Water and Public
Health. EPA 815-F-10-001. Available on the Internet at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.cfm
van den Hove, M.F., C. Beckers, H. Devlieger, F. de Zegher, P. De
Nayer. 1999. Hormone synthesis and storage in the thyroid of human
preterm and term newborns: Effect of thyroxine treatment. Biochimie.
Vol. 81. p. 563-570.
Zimmerman, M. 2009. Iodide Deficiency. Endocrine Reviews. Vol. 30,
No. 4. p. 376-408.

    Dated: February 2, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-2603 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 9193]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-7848]

Belliveau, Robert G.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 17, 2016, Robert G. Belliveau
submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
\1\ and Part 45.8 (2015) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) \2\ Rules of Practice and Procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) (2012).
    \2\ 18 CFR part 45 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 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 electronic 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 9, 2016.

    Dated: February 18, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03824 Filed 2-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 64613-64614]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM01-5-000]

Electronic Tariff Filings; Notice of Technical Conference
Regarding Electronic Tariff Filing

October 24, 2008.
    Take notice that on Wednesday, December 3, 2008, a technical
conference will be held to discuss the implementation of electronic
tariff filing. In Order No. 714,\1\ the Commission adopted regulations
requiring that, as of April 10, 2010, tariff and tariff related filings
must be made electronically. The Commission adopted a set of protocols
and standards developed through a consensus process under the auspices
of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) to govern the
manner and format in which such filings must be made. NAESB developed
these standards and protocols to provide each filing company with the
``flexibility to develop software to better integrate tariff filings
with their individual tariff maintenance and business needs.'' \2\ As
part of the compliance process, the Commission authorized Commission
staff to continue their dialog with ``the industries involved to help
the industries better understand the use of the code values as well as
to discuss issues that may arise regarding methods of implementing the
standards.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, 73 FR 57,515 (Oct.
3, 2008), 124 FERC ] 61,270 (Sept. 19, 2008).
    \2\ Order No. 714, at P 9. The Commission also recognized that
``these standards and protocols also will provide an open platform
permitting third-party software developers to create more efficient
tariff filing and maintenance applications, which will spread the
development costs over larger numbers of companies.'' Id.
    \3\ Order No. 714, at P 88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This first technical conference is designed to provide tariff
filers and third-party software developers with an opportunity to
obtain technical information about the requirements of the standards to
assist companies in developing software and in determining whether
developing or purchasing software would best fit their tariff
maintenance needs. The conference also will consider the schedule for
future conferences and the subjects to be discussed at those
conferences.
    The format of the conference will be interactive, and companies are
encouraged to ask questions about the technical aspects of the
standards. To help Commission staff in planning the conference so that
it will provide as much assistance to the industries as possible,
participants are encouraged to submit by e-mail in advance of the
meeting the topics or questions they would like discussed. Emails
should be directed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and should include ``Discussion
Topic'' in the subject line.
    Background material on the standards and requirements can be found
on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov; click on eTariff under the
Documents and Filings Heading).
    The technical conference is open to the public. The conference will
be held from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. (EDT) at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. In
addition, the conference will be accessible via WebEx and telephone.
    Those wishing to participate via a WebEx (http://www.webex.com)
computer connection and telephone must submit by no later than November
24, 2008, a request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The e-mail must include
Registration in the subject line and the requester's name, e-mail
address, and telephone number in the body of the e-mail. Only the first
50 requests to use the WebEx computer connection to view documents can
be honored. All telephonic connection requests can be honored. We will
notify WebEx requesters if their request to use WebEx computer
connections can be granted and will provide the appropriate Logon
information by e-mail prior to the conference. We anticipate that most
of the material to be referenced on WebEx during the conference is
posted on the Commission's Web site, so even those without the WebEx
computer connection should be able to follow most of the discussion.
    For more information, contact Keith Pierce, Office of Energy
Markets and

Reliability at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25918 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P