[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30292-30293]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11530]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC16-116-000.
    Applicants: Weyerhaeuser NR Company, International Paper Company.
    Description: Application of Weyerhaeuser NR Company, et al. under
Section 203 for Disposition and Consolidation of Jurisdictional
Facilities, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/6/16.
    Accession Number: 20160506-5255.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG16-97-000.
    Applicants: River Bend Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of River Bend Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20160509-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1355-004.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Amendment to December 17, 2015 Market-Based Rate
Triennial Filing for Southwest Region of Southern California Edison
Company.
    Filed Date: 5/6/16.
    Accession Number: 20160506-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3232-006; ER14-2871-009; ER16-182-004; ER10-
3244-011; ER10-3251-009; ER14-2382-009; ER15-621-008; ER11-2639-009;
ER15-622-008; ER15-463-008; ER16-72-004; ER15-110-008; ER13-1586-010;
ER10-1992-016.
    Applicants: Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc., Cameron Ridge,
LLC, Cameron Ridge II, LLC, Coso Geothermal Power Holdings, LLC, Oak
Creek Wind Power, LLC, ON Wind Energy LLC, Pacific Crest Power, LLC,
Ridge Crest Wind Partners, LLC, Ridgetop Energy, LLC, San Gorgonio
Westwinds II, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II--Windustries, Terra-Gen
Energy Services, LLC, TGP Energy Management, LLC, Victory Garden Phase
IV, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the ECP MBR Sellers, et
al.
    Filed Date: 5/6/16.
    Accession Number: 20160506-5260.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1643-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Southern California Edison
Company Rate Schedule No. 282.
    Filed Date: 5/6/16.
    Accession Number: 20160506-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1644-000.
    Applicants: TPF Generation Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal 2016 to be effective
5/10/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20160509-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1645-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Van Tyle Transmission Station
Interconnection Facilities Agreement to be effective 5/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20160509-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1646-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: BPA General Transfer
Agreement (West) Rev 6 to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20160509-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1647-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Revised Added
Facilities Rate WDAT--Filing No. 12 to be effective 7/9/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20160509-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1648-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Revised Added
Facilities Rate under TO--Filing No. 3 to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20160509-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1649-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-05-09 Aliso Canyon
Tariff Amendment to Enhance Gas-Electric Coordination to be effective
6/2/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20160509-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/16.

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

    Dated: May 9, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11530 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


To:  Reid Rosnick
From: Neal S. Nelson
Subject: Comparison of CAP88 calculations from SC&A and the EPA web version of CAP88
	As a cross check to assure that the version of CAP88 being used by SC&A is the same as the one which is downloaded from the EPA radiation website, a couple of the input data sets were obtained from SC&A.
	Initially I was unable to duplicate SC&A results. Investigation of the problem revealed I had a copy of `CAP88 ver3' which had an executable dated 02/24/07. I had downloaded it from the EPA website at some time in the past. The out put had scrambled the dose conversion files somehow.
	After discussing the question with SC&A, I discovered that the current version of `CAP88 ver3' has an executable dated 12/09/07. After I downloaded and installed a new copy of the current `CAP88 ver3', I was able to run and duplicate the SC&A calculations.
	Since the EPA website lists only `CAP88 ver3' for downloading, and does not indicate that different builds of the program have different executables, the only way to identify different builds is to compare the executables for size  and date.
	Also, I was unable to run the program on a computer that had been off line for a couple of years. The error report showed that Active X was unable to do something. It would appear that the Windows program must be up to date, so the computer must be on line to get the automatic updates to Windows.
	Anyway, it seems that we are running the same version of `CAP88 ver3' as SC&A and can duplicate or extend any reports we get from them.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47038-47042]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-
2003-14504; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20560;
FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333;
FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2008-0292;
FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2011-0010;
FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2011-0124;
FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0021;
FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0029;
FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048;
FMCSA-2015-0052; FMCSA-2015-0053; FMCSA-2015-0055; FMCSA-2016-0033;
FMCSA-2016-0213; FMCSA-2017-0017; FMCSA-2017-0020; FMCSA-2017-0022]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 104
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirements in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before October
7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334, Docket No. FMCSA-
1999-5578, Docket No. FMCSA-2001-9561, Docket No. FMCSA-2003-14504,
Docket No. FMCSA-2003-15268, Docket No. FMCSA-2004-19477, Docket No.
FMCSA-2005-20560, Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21254, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-
24783, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26066, Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27333, Docket
No. FMCSA-2007-27515, Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27897, Docket No. FMCSA-
2007-28695, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0292, Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0086,
Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0154, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0354, Docket No.
FMCSA-2011-0010, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0057, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-
0092, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0102, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0124, Docket
No. FMCSA-2011-0140, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0141, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-
0338, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0021, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0025, Docket
No. FMCSA-2013-0027, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0028, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-
0029, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0030, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0011, Docket
No. FMCSA-2014-0305, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0048, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-
0052, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0053, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0055, Docket
No. FMCSA-2016-0033, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0213, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-
0017, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0020; or Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0022 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting

material to the docket, contact Docket Services,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2001-9561;
FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20560;
FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333;
FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2008-0292;
FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2011-0010;
FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2011-0124;
FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0021;
FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0029;
FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048;
FMCSA-2015-0052; FMCSA-2015-0053; FMCSA-2015-0055; FMCSA-2016-0033;
FMCSA-2016-0213; FMCSA-2017-0017; FMCSA-2017-0020; or FMCSA-2017-0022),
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends
that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or
a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact
you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2001-
9561; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-
20560; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-
2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2007-28695;
FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0354;
FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102;
FMCSA-2011-0124; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2012-0338;
FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028;
FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0305;
FMCSA-2015-0048; FMCSA-2015-0052; FMCSA-2015-0053; FMCSA-2015-0055;
FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0213; FMCSA-2017-0017; FMCSA-2017-0020; or
FMCSA-2017-0022, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' When the new
screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type your
comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you
are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third
party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2001-
9561; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-
20560; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-
2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2007-28695;
FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0354;
FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102;
FMCSA-2011-0124; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2012-0338;
FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028;
FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0305;
FMCSA-2015-0048; FMCSA-2015-0052; FMCSA-2015-0053; FMCSA-2015-0055;
FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0213; FMCSA-2017-0017; FMCSA-2017-0020; or
FMCSA-2017-0022, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click
the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If
you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online
by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.
    The 104 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent

with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA
will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 104
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the vision standard (see 63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 64 FR
27027; 64 FR 51568; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 41654; 66 FR 41656; 66 FR 48504;
68 FR 19598; 68 FR 33570; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 48989; 68 FR
54775; 69 FR 64806; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 25878; 70 FR 30997;
70 FR 30999; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 42615; 70 FR 46567; 70 FR 53412; 71 FR
32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 5489; 72 FR 12666;
72 FR 21313; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 28093; 72 FR 32703; 72 FR
39879; 72 FR 40360; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 46261; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR 54972;
72 FR 62896; 73 FR 61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 74565; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR
15586; 74 FR 19267; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 20523; 74 FR 23472; 74 FR 26464;
74 FR 28094; 74 FR 34394; 74 FR 34395; 74 FR 34632; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR
41971; 74 FR 43221; 74 FR 43223; 74 FR 48343; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77949;
75 FR 79083; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 17483; 76 FR 18824; 76 FR
20076; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 29022; 76 FR 29024;
76 FR 32017; 76 FR 34135; 76 FR 34136; 76 FR 37169; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR
40445; 76 FR 44082; 76 FR 44652; 76 FR 49531; 76 FR 50318; 76 FR 53708;
76 FR 53710; 76 FR 54530; 76 FR 55463; 76 FR 55469; 77 FR 68202; 77 FR
74273; 77 FR 74731; 77 FR 74734; 78 FR 10251; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 16762;
78 FR 20376; 78 FR 20379; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR
26106; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 32708; 78 FR 34140; 78 FR 34141; 78 FR 34143;
78 FR 37270; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 51268; 78 FR
52602; 78 FR 56986; 78 FR 56993; 78 FR 78477; 79 FR 4531; 79 FR 24298;
79 FR 56099; 79 FR 65759; 79 FR 70928; 79 FR 73686; 79 FR 73687; 80 FR
15863; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 26139; 80 FR 26320;
80 FR 29149; 80 FR 29154; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 33007; 80 FR 33009; 80 FR
35699; 80 FR 36395; 80 FR 36398; 80 FR 37718; 80 FR 40122; 80 FR 44185;
80 FR 44188; 80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48402; 80 FR 48404; 80 FR 48409; 80 FR
48411; 80 FR 49302; 80 FR 50915; 80 FR 50917; 80 FR 53383; 80 FR 62161;
80 FR 62163; 81 FR 59266; 81 FR 96165; 82 FR 13187; 82 FR 15277; 82 FR
18949; 82 FR 20962; 82 FR 22379; 82 FR 23712; 82 FR 32919; 82 FR 33542;
82 FR 34564; 82 FR 37499; 82 FR 37504; 82 FR 47269; 82 FR 47309; 83 FR
4537). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at Sec.
391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while driving with the respective
vision deficiencies over the past 2 years indicates each applicant
continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors
provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to
continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA
concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a
period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of September
and are discussed below. As of September 6, 2019, and in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 49 individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (66 FR
30502; 66 FR 41654; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 48989; 69 FR 64806;
70 FR 2705; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 42615; 71 FR
32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 5489; 72 FR 12666;
72 FR 21313; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 32703; 72 FR 40360; 72 FR
40362; 73 FR 61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 74565; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 15586;
74 FR 19267; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 23472; 74 FR 26464; 74 FR 28094; 74 FR
34395; 74 FR 34632; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77949; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 2190;
76 FR 9856; 76 FR 17483; 76 FR 18824; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR
25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 29022; 76 FR 29024; 76 FR 32017; 76 FR 34135;
76 FR 37169; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 44082; 76 FR 44652; 76 FR 49531; 76 FR
50318; 77 FR 68202; 77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74731; 77 FR 74734; 78 FR 10251;
78 FR 12811; 78 FR 16762; 78 FR 20376; 78 FR 20379; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR
24300; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 26106; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 32708; 78 FR 34140;
78 FR 34141; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR
51268; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56993; 79 FR 4531; 79 FR 24298; 79 FR 56099;
79 FR 65759; 79 FR 70928; 79 FR 73686; 79 FR 73687; 80 FR 15863; 80 FR
16502; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 26139; 80 FR 26320; 80 FR 29149;
80 FR 29154; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 33007; 80 FR 33009; 80 FR 35699; 80 FR
36395; 80 FR 36398; 80 FR 37718; 80 FR 40122; 80 FR 44185; 80 FR 44188;
80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48404; 80 FR 48409; 80 FR 50917; 80 FR 62161; 80 FR
62163; 81 FR 59266; 81 FR 96165; 82 FR 13187; 82 FR 15277; 82 FR 18949;
82 FR 20962; 82 FR 22379; 82 FR 23712; 82 FR 32919; 82 FR 33542; 82 FR
34564; 82 FR 37499; 82 FR 47269; 83 FR 4537):

Jimmie L. Blue (MT)
Wilfred J. Brinkman (OH)
Dale E. Bunke (ID)
Ralph H. Bushman (IL)
Roger C. Carson (IN)
Daniel G. Cohen (VT)
Adan Cortes-Juarez (WA)
Jeffrey W. Cotner (OR)
Timothy J. Curran (CA)
Joseph Cuthbert (PA)
Walter C. Dean, Sr. (AL)
John C. Dimassa (WA)
Sonya Duff (IN)
Mark J. Dufresne (NH)
Dennis C. Edler (PA)
Jonathan G. Estabrook (MA)
Eric M. Grayson (KY)
William K. Gullett (KY)
Anthony Hall (LA)
Paul M. Hinkson (TN)
Wesley D. Hogue (AR)
Roy W. Houser II (TN)
John T. Johnson (NM)
Jay D. Labrum (UT)
Anthony Luciano (CT)
Duffy P. Metrejean, Jr. (LA)
Brian P. Millard (SC)
Vincent R. Neville (MN)
Willie L. Nez (UT)
Gonzalo Pena (FL)
Robert D. Porter (CA)
Dennis M. Prevas (WI)
Steven A. Proctor (TX)
William A. Ramirez Vasquez (CA)
Steven P. Richter (MN)
Jonathan C. Rollings (IA)
Salvador Sanchez (CA)
Dennis J. Smith (CO)
Hoyt V. Smith (SC)
Rodney W. Sukalski (MN)
Sukru Tamirci (NY)
Lee T. Taylor (FL)
Michael J. Thane (OH)
Jon C. Thompson (TX)
Larry A. Tidwell (MO)
Harlon C. VanBlaricom (MN)
Richard A. Westfall (OH)
Jeff L. Wheeler (IA)
Tommy N. Whitworth (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-
2003-15268; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24783;
FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2008-0292;
FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0057;
FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2012-0338;
FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028;
FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048;
FMCSA-2015-0052; FMCSA-

2015-0053; FMCSA-2015-0055; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0213; FMCSA-
2017-0017; FMCSA-2017-0020. Their exemptions are applicable as of
September 6, 2019, and will expire on September 6, 2021.
    As of September 7, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (76 FR 34136; 76 FR 37169; 76 FR
50318; 76 FR 55463; 78 FR 78477; 80 FR 50915; 83 FR 4537):

Charles E. Carter (MI); James A. Ellis (NY); and Peter M. Shirk (PA)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2011-0124; FMCSA-
2011-0140. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 7, 2019, and
will expire on September 7, 2021.
    As of September 12, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (82 FR 37501; 82 FR 47309):

Eddie S. Bennett (MI)
David A. Cooper (WV)
Nicholas M. Deschepper (SD)
John F. Ferguson (PA)
Dominick P. Fittipaldi (PA)
Louis R. LeMonds (WA)
Jonathan Marin (NJ)
Mark E. McNaughton (IA)
Louis Neofotistos (MA)
James R. Rupert (CA)
Christopher J. Schmidt (WI)
Greg C. Stilson (WY)
Eloy Zuniga (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2017-0022. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 12, 2019, and will expire on
September 12, 2021.
    As of September 13, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 66 FR
41656; 68 FR 44837; 70 FR 41811; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 52419;
74 FR 41971; 76 FR 54530; 78 FR 78477; 80 FR 48402; 83 FR 4537):

John A. Bridges (GA)
Brian W. Curtis (IL)
Tomie L. Estes (MO)
Ray C. Johnson (AR)
James J. Mitchell (NC)
Joshua R. Perkins (ID)
Craig R. Saari (MN)
Jerry L. Schroder (IL)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-
2007-27897. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 13, 2019,
and will expire on September 13, 2021.
    As of September 16, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (78 FR 27281; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR
41188; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56986; 80 FR 48411; 83 FR 4537):

Carl Block (NY)
Christopher Brim (TN)
Phyllis Dodson (IN)
Juan M. Guerrero (TX)
Berl C. Jennings (VA)
Vincent Marsee, Sr. (NC)
David Snellings (MD)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-
2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0029. Their exemptions are applicable as of
September 16, 2019, and will expire on September 16, 2021.
    As of September 22, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (68 FR 19598; 68 FR 33570; 70 FR
17504; 70 FR 25878; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 28093; 72 FR 40362; 74 FR 20523;
74 FR 34394; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 48343; 76 FR 34136; 76 FR 53708; 76 FR
54530; 76 FR 55463; 78 FR 78477; 80 FR 49302; 83 FR 4537):

Michael K. Adams (OH)
Eleazar R. Balli (TX)
Darrell W. Bayless (TX)
Clifford D. Carpenter (MO)
Cecil A. Evey (ID)
Kamal A. Gaddah (OH)
Eric M. Kousgaard (NE)
Samuel A. Miller (IN)
Larry T. Rogers (IL)
Marcial Soto-Rivas (OR)
Boyd D. Stamey (NC)
David C. Sybesma (ID)
Matthew K. Tucker (MN)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2003-14504;
FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2011-0124. Their exemptions
are applicable as of September 22, 2019, and will expire on September
22, 2021.
    As of September 23, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 66 FR
48504; 68 FR 19598; 68 FR 33570; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 48989; 68 FR 54775;
70 FR 30999; 70 FR 42615; 70 FR 46567; 70 FR 53412; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR
52419; 72 FR 62896; 74 FR 43221; 76 FR 53708; 78 FR 78477; 80 FR 53383;
83 FR 4537):

Linda L. Billings (NV)
Weldon R. Evans (OH)
Orasio Garcia (TX)
Leslie W. Good (OR)
James P. Guth (PA)
Gregory K. Lilly (WV)
Kenneth A. Reddick (PA)
Leonard Rice, Jr. (GA)
James T. Sullivan (KY)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-
2003-14504; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2007-27897. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 23, 2019, and will expire on
September 23, 2021.
    As of September 27, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (72 FR 46261; 72 FR 54972; 74 FR
43223; 76 FR 40445; 76 FR 53710; 76 FR 55469; 78 FR 78477; 83 FR 4537):

Joe M. Flores (NM); and Kenneth D. Perkins (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2007-28695;
FMCSA-2011-0141. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 27,
2019, and will expire on September 27, 2021.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified medical examiner (ME), as defined by Sec.
390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified
under Sec.  391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the
annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of
the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a
copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption
will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the

exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 104 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each
exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: August 29, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-19266 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Projected Percent Crop Treated for the Fungicide Tetraconazole
on Three Crops: Peanuts, Soybeans, and Sugar Beets.

FROM:	Jihad Alsadek, Economist

Science Information & Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

			Richard Michell, Plant Pathologist

			Biological Analysis Branch

			Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:			Mary Waller, Product Manager

			Fungicide Branch

			Registration Division (7505P)

THRU:	Diann Sims, Chief

			Science Information Analysis Branch

			Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

			Arnet Jones, Chief

			Biological Analysis Branch

			Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

PRP Review: November 29, 2006

I.	SUMMARY

	This memorandum provides projected percent crop treated (PPCT) values
for tetraconazole on three crops (peanuts, soybeans, and sugar beets),
as well as the corresponding Federal Register (FR) language.  The
methodology used to produce the estimates is outlined below, along with
the analysis of additional biological information that could impact the
assessments.  The market leader approach is only used with peanuts;
other approaches are used with soybeans and sugar beets.  The registrant
Isa Gro input and expert opinions are used for soybeans, and the sugar
beet regional value is adjusted for a national one.  We have examined
all the relevant data and conclude that it is unlikely that the actual
percent crop treated (PCT) values for tetraconazole on peanuts, soybeans
and sugar beets in the next five years will exceed the PPCTs provided
for tetraconazole on these three crops. Numbers to be used in risk
analysis are shown in table 1.

Table 1. Values to be used in Risk Assessment

Crop	Chronic	Acute

Peanuts	77	88

Soybeans	27	38

Sugar Beets	70	70

II.	FR LANGUAGE

EPA estimates projected percent crop treated (PPCT) for a new pesticide
use by assuming that the percent crop treated (PCT) during the
pesticide’s initial five years of use on a specific use site will not
exceed the average PCT of the market leader (i.e., the one with the
greatest PCT) on that site.

Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the primary source for PCT data.  When
a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA uses other sources
including proprietary data and calculates the PCT.  Comparisons are only
made among pesticides of the same pesticide types (i.e., the leading
fungicide on the use site is selected for comparison with the new
fungicide).  The PCTs included in the average may be for the same
pesticide, or for different pesticides, since the same, or different
pesticides, may dominate for each year selected.    This PPCT, based on
the average PCT of the market leader, is appropriate for use in chronic
dietary risk assessment. The method of estimating a PPCT for a new use
of a registered pesticide or a new pesticide produces a high-end
estimate that is unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded during the
initial five years of actual use.

The predominant factors that bear on whether the estimated PPCT could be
exceeded are whether new pesticide use or new pesticide is more
efficacious or controls a broader spectrum of pests than the dominant
pesticide; and/or whether there are concerns with pest pressures as
indicated in emergency exemption requests or other readily available
information; and/or other factor based on analysis of additional
information, such as the total crop acreage and the geographical
distribution of the crops and pests.

All information currently available for the predominant factors
mentioned above or relevant to the case in question have been considered
for this chemical, and it is the opinion of BEAD that it is unlikely
that actual PCT for tetraconazole will exceed the PPCT during the next
five years.

III.	PROJECTIONS BASED ON MARKET LEADER APPROACH

The PPCTs for peanuts are calculated by averaging the PCTs of the
leading fungicide(s) for the three most recent available years.  The
PPCT for sugar beets showed a 55 percent use of tetraconazole as the
market leader for the year 2000, but 2000 USDA/NASS data for the market
leader tetraconazole is registered on sugar beets in seven states
(Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and
Wyoming).  NASS data are adjusted to get the acres treated in each of
the seven states, summing them up, then dividing by the sum of the
planted acres in these same states, and multiplying by 100 to get, on
average, market leader for sugar beets to be used in chronic dietary
risk assessment and acute risk too.

  The PPCTs for soybeans were based on a modified approach which is
described in the following subsection (Modified PPCT Approach for
Soybeans).

Table 2.  Projected Tetraconazole PCT Values for Dietary Risk
Assessments

Crop	Market Leaders	Average

Market Leader	Maximum

Market Leader	Years

Peanuts	Chlorothalonil 	77	88	1991, 1999, 2004

Soybeans	Unknown, but projected to be a triazole and/or strobilurin
fungicide	27	38	Future projection for next 5 years

Sugar Beets	Tetraconazole	70	70	Adjusted for year 2000

Sources:  Based on 1991 to 2004 NASS usage data for peanuts and sugar
beets.  Crop

Specialists’ usage projections were used for soybeans.

  Market leaders could be the same chemical for all three years or could
be different for each year.

b  Averaging the available years.

c  The highest observed percent crop treated of the available survey
years.

IV.         Modified PPCT Approach for Soybeans

Due to the recent discovery of a new and important disease on soybeans,
Asian soybean rust, historical information was not considered useful for
estimating a useful PCT for a fungicide market leader on soybeans.
Another approach was utilized which involved obtaining PCT estimates for
future market leaders from soybean crop specialists.  The estimates were
obtained via a phone call and four list server responses enlisted by
USDA.  The five crop specialists’ PCT estimates for a market leader
ranged from 10 to 38 percent.  For a conservative estimate we utilized
only the maximum projected values provided by each respondent, which
ranged from 15 to 38 percent.  These values translated into average and
maximum PPCT values of 27 and 38 percent, respectively.

The most common factors used by the crop specialists to project the
market leader PCT were: weather patterns; prevailing winds; length of
time crop is in a growth stage that will lead to yield losses, if
infection occurs during this period; cost-effectiveness of treatments;
and market supply/availability limitations.  Some of the specific
examples provided to support their estimates were:

About 21% of the total soybean acreage is in areas where the prevailing
winds and temperature and humidity are generally unfavorable for soybean
rust infection (e.g., KS, ND, NE, SD).

About 16% of the total soybean acreage doesn’t have the yield
potential to justify the cost of a soybean rust fungicide treatment.

In most years 40% of the soybean acreage is considered to possess a high
risk for soybean rust infection (e.g., IL, IN, OH, AR, eastern MO).

Pesticide distributors are more likely to carry stock of those soybean
rust fungicides that have other labeled uses relevant to area growers
(e.g., wheat  and corn uses in Midwestern states).  Note: The only
alternate crop uses for tetraconazole are sugar beets and peanuts, which
are not prevalent crops in most soybean production areas.

V.	ADDITIONAL FACTORS

Table 3. Biological Analysis of BEAD’s Projected Percent Crop Treated
(PPCT) for Tetraconazole on Three New Crops

NEW USES

[AVG. /MAX. PPCT]	RECENT MARKET LEADER(S) [SAMPLE YEARS]
JUSTIFICATION/COMMENTS	WILL TETRACONAZOLE EXCEED THE PCT LEVELS OF
MARKET LEADER(S)?

Sugar Beets – cercospora leaf spot,

powdery mildew

[70/70]	tetraconazole

[2000]	Tetraconazole is the current market leader (55%), and was
previously only registered for use in 7 sugar beet producing states (CO,
MI, MN, MT, NE, ND, WY); based on the 2006 acreage planted, the addition
of 4 states (CA, ID, OR, WA) increases the potential acreage to be
treated by about 18 percent;  if all the planted acreage in these 4
additional states are treated it could bring the PPCT up to about 77%;
based upon the pest information provided in the USDA Crop Profiles it is
not likely that more than 70% of the planted acreage will be treated in
any of the 4 additional states, because the reported total fungicide
usage for these target pests is less than 70%	No

Soybeans –

Asian soybean rust,

cercospora,

frog eye,

white mold, powdery mildew, septoria, anthracnose

[27/38]	Not applicable	These values seem to be reasonable estimates for
the future market leader(s) when the following factors are considered:

1] at least 11 active ingredients are currently available and competing
for the Asian soybean rust control market on the approximately 75
million acres grown;

2] treatments are only warranted when weather conditions conducive to
disease development occur during the soybean bloom and/or pod fill
stages;

3] in any given year the probability of a national epidemic which
results in the need for most of the US acreage grown in the 31 soybean
producing states being treated is low, because it would be dependent
upon the widespread occurrence of unusual weather patterns during the
critical crop growth stages;

4] The proposed labeling allows for up to two applications per year,
which if it occurs will reduce stocks and therefore reduce the total
acreage capable of being treated; Some of the crop specialists projected
that up to 30 - 40% of the acreage in their state may be treated twice.

5] the registrant stated that only one tetraconazole product will be
marketed for the soybean use because the chemical is still under patent,
which would appear to limit the amount likely to be available throughout
the US due to supply limitations and surplus stock concerns if an
epidemic does not occur;

6] The registrant (Isa Gro), per a personal phone call on November 16,
2006, stated that although they projected they might be able to treat as
much as 5.38% of the crop if an epidemic occurred; they felt it would be
impossible to supply enough tetraconazole to treat 10% of the crop
anytime within the next 5 years.

7] Since the disease organism is not considered cold-hardy, each growing
season the disease must start its northward movement from Mexico and/or
extreme southern United States locations.  Accordingly, the northward
disease spread each year and the specific states impacted is dependent
upon wind speed and direction during humid and moderate temperature
weather.

8] EPA has approved a wide range of active ingredients and products that
can be available to growers.  This effort was initiated because of
national concern that the supply of fungicides would not be adequate in
the case of a soybean rust epidemic.  This involved granting numerous
states permission to use seven active ingredients via Section 18
quarantine emergency exemptions, in addition to the four active
ingredients already available via Section 3 registrations.

9] Based on yields obtained in recent soybean rust efficacy studies
conducted in the US and other countries the triazole and strobilurin
fungicide classes generally seem to be the most efficacious groups of
fungicides to use (Fungicide & Nematicide Tests – Special Section on
Asian Soybean Rust Reports;   HYPERLINK
"http://www.apsnet.org/online/FNtests/"
http://www.apsnet.org/online/FNtests/ ).  Most crop specialists predict
combinations of these two types of fungicides will be used by many
growers.

10] Since the competing fungicide tebuconazole is reportedly among the
least expensive fungicides, as well as one of the most effective
triazole fungicides, it is generally considered by crop specialists to
be the triazole fungicide of choice.  Since there are multiple products
(alone and in combinations with other fungicides) being sold by
different companies reasonable stocks are expected to be available in
most soybean production areas.

11] Crop specialists projected that the maximum US soybean acreage to be
treated with a fungicide, if an epidemic occurred, would range from
35-65 percent (average = 54%).  Therefore if one of the eleven active
ingredients available were able to attain a 50% market share this would
only result in a maximum of 32.5% of the crop being treated with any one
fungicide.  BEAD contends that this level of market share is rarely
achieved when a number of competitive active ingredients are available.
	No,  plus the likelihood of an epidemic although uncertain is thought
to be low

Peanuts –

early leaf spot, late leaf spot,

web blotch,

rust [77/88]	chlorothalonil [ 1991, 1999, 2004]	The market leader
chlorothalonil is  typically inexpensive and is used mainly for control
of the same pests that are claimed on the proposed tetraconazole label
plus the common and important disease white mold (southern stem rot);
chlorothalonil is alternated with various systemic fungicides to delay
the development of resistant pest strains; the introduction of the
systemic fungicide tetraconazole will not likely affect
chlorothalonil’s current usage, but it is expected to share the
existing systemic fungicide market	No

VI. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

BEAD recommends that the given average PPCTs be used in the chronic
dietary risk assessment for tetraconazole, and the maximum PPCTs for
acute risk assessment.  BEAD has considered all relevant information and
believes it is unlikely that the above PPCTs will be exceeded during the
next five years for peanuts, soybeans, and sugar beets.

VII. References:

Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the source for raw PCT data because it
is publicly available and does not have to be calculated from available
data sources.  When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS,
EPA uses proprietary data and calculates the estimated PCT.

Agricultural Chemical Usage, 1990 Field Crops Summary, May 1991

Agricultural Chemical Usage, 1998 Field Crops Summary, May 1999

Agricultural Chemical Usage, 1999 Field Crops Summary, May 2000

Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2004 Field Crops Summary, May 2005

USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Sugar Beet in California.

	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/casugarbeets.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/casugarbeets.html

USDA, 2000. Crop Profile for Sugar Beet in Idaho.

	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/IDsugarbeets.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/IDsugarbeets.html

USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Sugar Beet in Oregon.

	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/orsugarbeets.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/orsugarbeets.html

USDA, 2001, Crop Profile for Sugar Beet in Washington.

	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/WAsugarbeets.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/WAsugarbeets.html

cc:  	Lisa Jones

	Thomas Bloem

	Dana Spatz


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45626-45629]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19189]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64953; File No. SR-CHX-2011-19]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Clarify the Application of the Fee Schedule to Certain Transactions of,
and Services to, CHX Participants and Make Certain Rate Changes

July 25, 2011.
    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 July 20, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Assessments (the ``Fee Schedule''), effective July 25, 2011, to amend
its Fee Schedule to clarify the application of the Fee Schedule to
certain transactions of, and services to, CHX Participants and make
certain rate changes. The text of this proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm and in 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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
    Through this filing, the Exchange is proposing to amend its
Schedule of Fees and Assessments (``Fee Schedule'') to clarify the
application of the Fee Schedule to various transactions consummated on
or through the Exchange and to certain services provided by the
Exchange to its Participants. The proposed changes accurately describe
the manner in which the Exchange has and will continue to apply the Fee
Schedule to such transactions and services.
    Currently, the Fee Schedule provides for Processing Fees for
fingerprinting, background checks and the provision of access badges by
the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange no longer provides either fingerprinting
or background checking services for current or prospective CHX
Participants, and we no longer wish to impose a fee for access badges.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees for these
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section C. (Registration Fees) of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also clarifying the application of Section E.1.
(Matching System single-sided order executions (one-sided orders of
100+ shares)) of the Fee Schedule to note that the Average Daily Volume
(``ADV'') calculations performed by the Exchange to determine the
amount of provide credit paid to a Participant are not being performed
when the Regular Trading Session closes early.\6\ Trade volume on days
on which the Late Trading Sessions close early, however, would continue
to be counted towards the ADV calculation. In addition, we are
eliminating the provide credit paid to Exchange-registered
Institutional Brokers (``Institutional Brokers'') in transactions in
securities priced less than one dollar. As noted in the discussion of
the changes to Section E.3. of the Fee Schedule, supra, we are
proposing to eliminate the charge in transactions in securities priced
less than one dollar to Participants which submit orders through an
Institutional Broker. It would not be economically feasible for the
Exchange to continue to pay a provide credit to Institutional Brokers
in transactions in which the Exchange

does not earn any transaction revenue. Finally, the provide credit paid
to Institutional Brokers in transactions in securities at or above one
dollar during the Regular Trading Session is being reduced to $0.0027/
share in Tape A and C securities and $0.0028/share in Tape B securities
from $0.0029/share. This reduction reflects the lower amount of revenue
generated in such transactions due to the rate changes for agency
executions submitted through an Institutional Broker.\7\ The Exchange
is also lowering the rate of the provide credit paid to Institutional
Brokers representing the Participant which originated the order
(regardless of the ADV attributable to either firm) for trades executed
in the Early and Late Trading Sessions to $0.0022/share in Tape A, B
and C securities priced $1.00/share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange proposes to change the phrase ``single order
executions'' in the caption to Section E.1, to ``single-sided order
executions'' to clarify that this section does not apply to cross
orders.
    \7\ These rate changes are discussed infra as part of the
modifications to Section E.3. of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it would be beneficial to clarify the
application of the Fee Schedule to certain cross transactions by
modifying the text of Section E.2. (Matching System crosses (All
Sessions)) of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes to move the
reference to proprietary trades by an Institutional Broker from Section
E.2. to Section E.3. (Executions through an Institutional Broker
Registered with the Exchange Under Article 17 (All Sessions)). The
Exchange believes that Section E.2. is properly construed to apply
solely to cross transactions entered directly by a Participant firm to
the Matching System by electronic means, and without the involvement of
an Institutional Broker. Unlike transactions (including cross trades)
handled by an Institutional Broker, cross transactions entered directly
into the Matching System by a CHX Participant and executed there are
not assessed any charge. The removal of the language regarding
proprietary cross trades executed by an Institutional Broker from this
section should help to eliminate any potential ambiguity on this
treatment. To reinforce this point, we are adding a clause to the last
sentence in this section which states that these provisions do not
apply to cross orders submitted by an Institutional Broker registered
with the Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Throughout the proposal, the Exchange proposes to modify
references to ``institutional brokers'' to clarify that such
references are limited to Institutional Brokers registered with the
Exchange pursuant to Article 17 of our rules, and not to
institutional brokers as colloquially referred to in the securities
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is modifying Section E.3. of the Fee Schedule to
clarify the proper application of the Fee Schedule to transactions
handled by an Institutional Broker. We propose to move the charge
relating to proprietary crosses of an Institutional Broker formerly
reflected in Section E.2 to new Section E.3.b. (Proprietary
Executions). The new language clarifies that the fee assessed to the
Institutional Broker of $.0007/share also applies to any odd lot
component of the cross trade. The new text also explicitly provides
that the Participant on the other side of the transaction is to be
assessed the fee normally assessed to a Participant whose order is
handled by an Institutional Broker, as set forth in proposed new
Section E.3.a. of the Fee Schedule. Current Section E.3. has been
renumbered as Proposed Section E.3.a. Proposed Section E.3.a. sets
forth a revised fee rate of $.003/share for all trades (regardless of
whether the security is a Tape A, B or C security) handled through an
Institutional Broker.\9\ The revised text makes explicit that the fees
pursuant to both Section 3.a. of the Fee Schedule are charged to the
Participant Firm in which name the transaction is submitted for
clearance and settlement (including both single-sided and cross orders)
through an Institutional Broker. The Exchange proposes to add text
excluding odd-lot orders from these provisions, as those orders are
assessed the Odd Lot fee pursuant to Section E.4. (Odd-lot Matching
System fee (single-sided orders of less than 100 shares) (All
Sessions)) of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate
the reference to trades executed by an Institutional Broker ``in
another market,'' since the Exchange does not impose the transaction
fee under Section E.3. for non-CHX executions. The Exchange further
proposes to clarify that the maximum charge per side shall be computed
for each Participant firm on a side (buy or sell) of a execution and
separately for a Participant which is represented by more than one
Institutional Broker Representative (as defined in Article 17, Rule 1
of the Exchange's rules). Finally, the Exchange proposes to add a
provision setting the fees at zero for Institutional Broker-handled
transactions in securities priced under $1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The revised fee rate conforms to the proscriptions of the
Reg NMS Rule 610 (the ``Access Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the text of Section E.4. of the Fee
Schedule relating to transactions in odd lots. The proposed new
language would clarify that the odd lot fees apply to orders submitted
to the Matching System (whether electronically by the Participant or
through an Institutional Broker) as an odd-lot order. The revised text
reflects CHX's current practice of not applying odd lot fees to orders
not entered into the Matching System as an odd-lot order, but which
become odd lots due to partial executions. Transactions in odd-lot
remainders would be charged the fee rate set forth in Section E.1. of
the Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange is proposing to delete Section E.6. of the Fee
Schedule relating to Matching System routing fees, since the CHX does
not currently offer automated routing services. This Section will be
reserved for future use in the event that the Exchange decides to offer
such services, or for other purposes.
    The Exchange is proposing certain changes to the trade processing
fees to clarify that such fees are charged to CHX Participants for
cross transactions that are executed in the over-the-counter (``OTC'')
marketplace and are reported to clearing by the Exchange's systems,
pursuant to Section E.7. (Trade Processing Fees) of the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange is also modifying the types of transactions subject to the
Trade Processing Fee to eliminate transaction executed directly in the
OTC marketplace by an Institutional Broker and in its place substitute
executed cross trades which originated with an Institutional Broker and
were transmitted to and executed by another broker-dealer (which is not
an Institutional Broker) in the OTC marketplace and which were
submitted to clearing by the Exchange's systems.\10\ This amendment
reflects ongoing discussions between the Exchange and the staff of the
Commission regarding limitations on the ability of Institutional
Brokers to directly execute trades in the OTC marketplace. The Exchange
also proposes to modify the current fee rate and maximum charge for
trade processing fees to conform to the rates charged for transactions
submitted through an Institutional Broker pursuant to Section E.3. of
the Fee Schedule. In such transactions, the Exchange currently charges
$.0035/share, up to a maximum of $100 per side for Tape A and B
securities, and $.0025/share, up to a maximum of $100 per side for Tape
C securities. By this proposal, we would change these rates to $.003/
share, up to

a maximum of $100 per side for all securities. We are also proposing to
define ``per side'' in the same manner as in Section E.3. These changes
would maintain the current state under which the fees charged pursuant
to Sections E.3. and E.7. are identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In such transactions, the third-party broker-dealer would
report the transaction to the appropriate Trade Reporting Facility,
and provide an execution report to the Institutional Broker, which
in turn would enter the information into the Exchange's systems for
submission to clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the Clearing Support Fees
currently set forth in Section H of the Fee Schedule. The CHX no longer
performs the services described in Section H and has no present
intention of doing so in the future. The elimination of these fees
would clarify to CHX Participants that the Exchange does not provide
clearing support services.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees for CCH
Rulebooks (which the Exchange no longer provides to Participants) and
monthly Brokerplex reports (which the Exchange will provide at no cost)
pursuant to Section L.2. and 3. (Supplies and Reports), respectively.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange is
proposing to eliminate certain fees in their entirety which would
reduce the financial obligation of Participants to the CHX. The fees to
be eliminated include certain processing fees for fingerprints,
background checks and badges (Section C of the Fee Schedule), Matching
System routing fees (Section E.6. of the Fee Schedule), Clearing
Support Fees (Section H of the Fee Schedule), and fees for rulebooks
and certain reports (Section L of the Fee Schedule). In Section E.1.,
the Exchange is reducing the provide credit paid to Institutional
Brokers in Regular Trading Hours session transaction from $0.0029/share
in Tape A and C securities to $0.0027/share and from transaction from
$0.0031/share in Tape B securities to $0.0028/share. In this same
Section, the Exchange is further proposing a provide credit be paid to
Institutional Brokers of $0.0022/share in securities priced greater
than $1.00/share for trades in the Early and Late Trading Sessions. The
Exchange also proposes that no provide credit shall be paid to
Institutional Brokers in transactions in securities priced less than
$1.00/share. The Exchange believes that the reduction in provide
credits paid to Institutional Brokers for trades during the Regular
Trading Session, as well as the elimination of the provide credit paid
to Institutional Brokers in transactions in all trading sessions in
securities priced less than $1.00, are appropriate because they will
enable the Exchange to retain a greater amount of the revenue
associated with such transactions, which in turn will assist the CHX in
funding its internal operations including the oversight of
Institutional Brokers. The Exchange further believes that the rate
changes in Section E.1. as to the Early and Late Trading Sessions are
appropriate because the proposed rates corresponds to the provide
credit generally paid to Participants for trades in the Early and Late
Trading Sessions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rate changes for CHX-executed
transactions entered through an Institutional Broker are fair and
appropriate (Section E.3. of the Fee Schedule). The Exchange hopes that
these rate changes will help it attract additional order flow to the
Exchange, as well as be consistent with the limitations on fees charged
by exchanges for access to quotations as set forth in Rule 610(c) of
Regulation NMS. The Exchange is making parallel changes to the Trade
Processing Fees set forth in Section E.7. of the Fee Schedule charged
in connection with the submission to clearing by the CHX of non-
Exchange trades handled by an Institutional Broker in order to maintain
the current level of parity in such fees with the fees charged pursuant
to Section E.3. of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange is also adding to the
types of transactions subject to the Trade Processing Fee any executed
trades submitted to Clearing by the Exchange's systems which originated
with an Institutional Broker and were transmitted to and executed by
another broker-dealer in the over-the-counter market. This addition
reflects ongoing discussions between the Exchange and the staff of the
Commission regarding limitations on the ability of Institutional
Brokers to directly execute trades in the over-the-counter marketplace.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act in particular, in that it
allows the Exchange to be organized and have the capacity to be able to
carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and (subject to any
rule or order of the Commission pursuant to section 17(d) or 19(g)(2)
of the Act) to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with such members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange. The proposed
clarifying changes to the Fee Schedule would establish the fees as they
were approved by the Exchange and would contribute to the ability of
its Participants to comply with the provisions of the Fee Schedule by
clarifying to such Participants the basis upon which the Exchange
charges for various of its fees and services. The proposed clarifying
changes include the following: (1) The limitation of Section E.1. to
single-sided orders (2) that the Average Daily Trading volume
calculation for purposes of applying the tiered rate schedule of
Section E.1. does not include days when the Regular Trading Session
closes early; (3) that the phrase ``institutional broker'' be
capitalized to reflect the intention to limit it to Institutional
Brokers registered with the CHX pursuant to Article 17 of our rules;
(4) that the provisions of Section E.2. apply only to crosses executed
in the Matching System and which were not entered through an
Institutional Broker; (5) the manner in which the CHX imposes fees on
Institutional Brokers for proprietary trades executed in the Matching
System; (6) the manner in which the CHX imposes fees on Participants
for Exchange transactions entered through an Institutional Broker; (7)
the application of the $100 maximum charge in the transactions noted in
(6); and (8) the imposition of fees on odd-lot orders.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \13\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \14\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or other
charge

applicable to the Exchange's members, which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2011-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2011-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2011-19 and should be
submitted on or before August 19, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19189 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67442-67443]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26515]

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

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:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1591-000.
    Applicants: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: 2019 Penalty Revenue and Costs Report
of Golden Pass Pipeline.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-210-001.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to RP20-210 to be
effective 11/6/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-214-001.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to RP20-214 to be
effective 11/7/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-225-001.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to RP20-225 to be
effective 11/12/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-289-001.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Negotiated Rates Amendment NJR and
DTE--eff 12-1-19 to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-294-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Summary of Negotiated Rate
Capacity Release Agreements on 12-2-19 to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-295-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release
Agreements--12/1/2019 to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-296-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (JERA
46435 to EDF 51808) to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-297-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts
(Atlanta Gas 8438 to various shippers eff 12-1-2019) to be effective
12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-298-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Constellation 51811 to Exelon 51846) to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-299-000.
    Applicants: UGI Sunbury, LLC.
    Description: Operational Purchases and Sales Report of UGI Sunbury,
LLC under RP20-299.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-300-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt
(Colorado Bend 46280) to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-301-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Aethon
50488, 37657 to Scona 51862, 51868) to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.

    Accession Number: 20191202-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-302-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (JERA
37702 to EDF 38350) to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-303-000.
    Applicants: ANR Storage Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate
Implementation to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-304-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Certain Coastal
Bend Agreements eff 12-1-2019 to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-305-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agmts Updates
to be effective 12/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-306-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--EQT Energy, LLC
SP341108 & SP344403 to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-307-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2019-12-2 Encana to
be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    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 date(s). 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 3, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26515 Filed 12-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 6167]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01962]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 Order of Suspension of Trading; In the Matter of Medis
Technologies Ltd., Modern Medical Modalities Corp., National
Datacomputer, Inc., New Media Lottery Services, Inc., Sino-Bon
Entertainment, Inc., Tamir Biotechnology, Inc., and Techmedia
Advertising, Inc.,

January 25, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Medis Technologies Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Modern Medical Modalities Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
National Datacomputer, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended December 31, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
New Media Lottery Services, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended April 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Sino-Bon Entertainment, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Tamir Biotechnology, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended January 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Techmedia Advertising, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended April 30, 2010.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on January 25, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EST on February 7, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01962 Filed 1-25-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P