                       SUSTAINABILITY: THE SOCIAL PILLAR

Questions for EPA, NACEPT

These are initial questions for discussion. After further consideration, a formal charge will be developed.

   * What should EPA's role be vis-à-vis the social pillar of sustainability?
             Sustainability is generally understood to include three interlocking "pillars": environmental, economic and social. EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. What is EPA's proper role relating to the social pillar? What are the pros and cons of different roles? How should EPA avoid the appearance of "mission creep"? What else should EPA avoid?
   * What should the social pillar include for EPA?
         oo What should EPA's key points of focus be and how (if at all) should EPA consider them in an integrated manner?
         oo Should EPA's focus be domestic only or international as well?
         oo How should EPA use social science to understand impacts?
         oo How would EPA know if it was succeeding?
   * How well is EPA doing now vis-à-vis the social pillar and how ought the agency to improve?
         oo Is EPA's current involvement appropriate and effective? What are its current capabilities, strengths and weaknesses? Are there any important gaps ?
         oo Should EPA support and/or rely on what others (e.g., companies, NGOs) are doing and if so how?
         oo What should EPA be doing with other agencies of Federal, state and local government?

EPA's Principal Current Involvement in the Social Pillar of Sustainability

   * Environmental justice		OEJ, programs, regions
   * Tribal affairs			OITA, programs, regions
   * Sustainable communities 	OP/OSC, ORD, Brownfields & Superfund, CARE, regions
   * Working conditions*		Programs (esp. OCSPP), regions, ORD
   * Children's health*		OCH, programs, regions
   * Environmental education	OEAEE, regions
   * Teleworking 			OARM
   * Information, transparency,	OEI, OEAEE, OP/OSEM, programs, regions
      civic engagement
   * Public knowledge and attitudes	OEI, OEAEE
   * International development and	OIA, OGC, programs
      international rule of law

*EPA generally considers health to be part of the environmental pillar, while some others consider it a part of the social pillar. Under either perspective, worker and children's health have aspects that should probably be considered under the social pillar.

Outside Points of Reference

   1.    ISO 26000  -  "Guidance on Social Responsibility"
   Includes the following elements (a rough checklist for the social pillar):
   * Principles of social responsibility:
   oo             Accountability
   oo             Transparency
   oo             Ethical behavior
   oo             Respect for stakeholder interests
   oo             Respect for the rule of law
   oo             Respect for international norms of behavior
   oo             Respect for human rights
   * Social responsibility core subjects
   oo             Human rights
   oo             Labor practices
   oo             The environment
   oo             Fair operating practices
   oo             Consumer issues
   oo             Community involvement and development

   2.    U.S. Department of Transportation
   Transportation Planning for Sustainability Guidebook, January 2011, excerpt from p. 18
   https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/sustainability/resources_and_publications/guidebook/sustain.pdf

   Social Sustainability Assessment

Of the three major objectives of sustainability, transportation agencies both in the US and abroad struggle most with assessing social sustainability. This may be due to difficulty in defining social sustainability or to a lack of appropriate data to conduct the analyses that provide meaningful information for decision-making. In terms of definitions, socially sustainable (urban) transportation (SSUT) has been defined as transportation that provides equitable access to opportunities, minimizes social exclusion, and improves (or does not diminish) an individual's quality of life (25). The literature seems to indicate that sustainability efforts have tended to include system performance and environmental criteria, less of economic criteria, and much less of social criteria. Social sustainability research includes three aspects: social equity, social exclusion and quality of life, with a common thread as the fair distribution of society's benefits and burdens. Equity refers to the fairness of distribution of resources based on need, which can be in conflict with total system efficiency. Exclusion is the result of spatial, temporal, financial or personal obstacles, and quality of life (more of a subjective measure) is a multidimensional construct measuring the ability to seek happiness and fulfill needs (25).

There have been several efforts to translate those definitions into social sustainability indicators. Steg and Gifford (2005) present a list of 22 quality of life indicators adapted from Poortinga et al. (26,27). The Swiss Government's Sustainable Development Initiative (28), Sustainable Seattle Coalition's community sustainability indicators, and PROSPECTS (Europe) are good sources of SSUT indicators. However, there is often difficulty in identifying appropriate data sources for desirable indicators. In this case, developing indicators requires creative use of available data. For example, several variables can be combined into a quality of life index; when considered alone the data may indicate one condition state, but when considered jointly the data may suggest trade-offs that occur.

The UK experience suggests that disaggregating traditional transportation statistics by geography or socioeconomic group could be an effective method for analyzing social equity (29). Such an analysis would require census data (demographics, geopolitical 19 boundaries) and available transportation statistics. A Geographic Information System (GIS) could also aid in such an analysis.

Environmental Justice (EJ) and Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) policies are the most common ways that US agencies address social equity, through consideration of the local context and an extensive public involvement process. More comprehensive assessment methodologies are needed. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) (described in detail in Chapter 5) is an example of such a method, and is starting to be used for transportation planning efforts in both the US and abroad.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days. After multiple tries at quitting smoking using various methods, I have found an alternative to tobacco that is helping me to quit smoking AND help me to wean myself off nicotine by having control of how much I have added to the “eliquid”. I have successfully gone from 18mg/ml to 6 mg/ml in the last 3 months and look forward to getting to 0 mg nicotine in the next few months. Being free from cigarettes after 23 years of smoking is a great feeling, and I can tell you first hand that vaping and smoking are nothing alike. I feel my health improving every month that I don’t smoke and my senses of smell and taste have improved immensely. These are just a few of the positive side effects that I have personally had while vaping. I also would like to point out that the “cigalikes” were not effective for me, and only after switching to a rebuildable tank and mechanical mod did I finally find what I was looking for. I also believe that some form of regulation is needed, but not the kind that destroys small business, creates a less desirable alternative to smoking, or allowing the big tobacco companys or big pharma control our products and usage. Give the little guys a break already. Age restrictions and labeling are common sense changes for the better, but some of these proposed regulations would possibly put thousands of tax paying small businesses out of business and make most of the equipment most of us use on a daily basis illegal and unavailable. That is not good regulation.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Barry Byers


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18536-18537]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7242-060]

STS Hydropower LLC.; Notice of Application for Surrender of
License, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for surrender of license.
    b. Project No: 7242-060.
    c. Date Filed: September 30, 2022, supplemented on February 28,
2023.
    d. Applicant: STS Hydropower, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Kanaka Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Sucker Run Creek, in
Butte County, California. The project does not occupy any federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Melissa Sonnleitner, PO Box 167,
Neshkoro, WI 54960,<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 347,
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Jeffrey V. Ojala,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: April 22, 2023.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. The first page of any filing should
include the docket number P-7242-060. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee proposes to surrender its
license for the project. The licensee states that the Ponderosa
Wildfire of August 2017 severely damaged or destroyed the project's
powerhouse, transmission lines, and electrical equipment. The project
has been inoperable since that time. Following the fire, the licensee
conducted an economic analysis and determined that it is not cost
effective to restore the Kanaka Project to full operation. A Dam
Decommissioning Plan is included with the application to surrender and
in the supplemental information filed on February 28, 2023. The
licensee has been working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California
Water Resource Control Board, and the California State Historic
Preservation Officer to develop its surrender application.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: March 23, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06515 Filed 3-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 11993-11994]
[DOCID:fr20mr09-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Effect Upon State Laws
and Regulations

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

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on May 2, 2008,
proposing Corporate Average Fuel standards for model years 2011-2015,
NHTSA set forth its previously stated view regarding preemption under
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of State standards regulating
carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes and proposed to
include a summary statement of those views in the Code of Federal
Regulations. However, in a January 26, 2009 memorandum requesting that
NHTSA complete its rulemaking in two phases, the President further
requested the agency to reconsider its views. In accordance with that
request, NHTSA will re-examine the issue of preemption in the context
of its forthcoming rulemaking to establish Corporate Average Fuel
Economy standards for model year 2012 and later years.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Wood, Acting Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA) amended the Energy Policy and Conversation Act (EPCA) by
mandating that the model year (MY) 2011-2020 Corporate Average Fuel
(CAFE) standards be set sufficiently high to ensure that the industry-
wide average of all new passenger cars and light trucks, combined,
reaches not less than 35 miles per gallon by MY 2020. NHTSA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 2, 2008 to begin
implementing the EISA mandate by establishing CAFE standards for MYs
2011-2015.\1\ In the proposal, NHTSA set forth its previously stated
view that State standards regulating carbon dioxide emissions from
motor vehicle tailpipes are expressly and impliedly preempted and
proposed to include a summary of that conclusion and the

underlying reasoning in the Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 24352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 26, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum concerning
the completion of the rulemaking.\2\ In light of the requirement in
EPCA to prescribe CAFE standards for 18 months in advance,\3\ i.e., by
March 30, 2009 for MY 2011, and in order to provide additional time to
obtain new information and consider anew the appropriate approach to
establishing future CAFE standards, the President requested NHTSA to
complete its rulemaking in two phases: (1) standards for MY 2011, and
(2) standards for MY 2012 and beyond. The President further requested
that NHTSA consider, as part of both phases, whether any provisions
regarding preemption are consistent with the EISA, the Supreme Court's
decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and other relevant provisions of law
and the policies underlying them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The memorandum is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the_press_office/The_Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_
of_2007/ (last accessed March 12, 2009).
    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts v. EPA,\4\ was a case involving a 2003 order of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denying a petition for rulemaking
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the
Clean Air Act.\5\ The Court ruled that greenhouse gases are
``pollutants'' under the Clean Air Act and that the Act therefore
authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles
if that agency makes the necessary findings and determinations under
section 202 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
    \5\ 68 FR 52922 (September 8, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court considered EPCA briefly, stating

    [T]hat DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to
shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with
protecting the public's ``health'' and ``welfare,'' 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7521(a)(1), a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's
mandate to promote energy efficiency. See Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, Sec.  2(5), 89 Stat. 874, 42 U.S.C. Sec.  6201(5).
The two obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think the
two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid
inconsistency.

549 U.S. at 537.

    In keeping with the President's remarks on January 26 regarding the
need for new national policies to address the closely intertwined
issues of energy independence, energy security and climate change, and
for the initiation of serious and sustained domestic and international
action to address them, NHTSA will develop CAFE standards for MY 2012
and beyond after collecting new information, conducting a careful
review of technical and economic inputs and assumptions and standard
setting methodology. It is reasonable to anticipate that this process
will lead to changes, given the further review and analysis that will
be conducted pursuant to the President's request, and given the steady
evolution in technical and policy factors potentially relevant to the
next CAFE rulemaking. NHTSA may consider numerous factors, including,
but not limited to, energy and climate change needs and policy choices
regarding goals and approaches to achieving them, developments in
domestic legislation and international negotiations regarding those
goals and approaches, technologies for reducing fuel consumption, the
capacity and condition of the automotive industry, fuel prices, and
climate change science and damage valuation.
    The goal of the review and re-evaluation will be to ensure that the
approach used for MY 2012 and thereafter produces CAFE standards that
contribute, to the maximum feasible extent, consistent with the legal
requirements of EPCA/EISA, to meeting the energy and environmental
challenges and goals outlined by the President. We intend to craft our
program with the goal of creating the maximum incentives for
innovation, providing reasonable flexibility to the regulated parties,
and meeting the goal of making substantial and continuing reductions in
the consumption of fuel sufficient to achieve at least 35 mpg not later
than model year 2020. To that end, we are committed to ensuring that
the CAFE program for beyond MY 2011 is based on the best scientific,
technical, and economic information available, and that such
information is developed in close coordination with the Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Energy and other federal agencies and
our stakeholders, including the public and the vehicle manufacturers.
    In response to the President's request that NHTSA consider whether
any provisions regarding preemption are consistent with EISA, the
Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and other relevant
provisions of law and the policies underlying them, NHTSA is
reconsidering its views regarding preemption under EPCA of state
standards regulating motor vehicle tailpipe emissions of carbon
dioxide. Accordingly, the agency will neither include any discussion of
preemption in the preamble to forthcoming final rule establishing CAFE
standards for MY 2011 nor include any provisions addressing preemption
in the amendments made by that rule to the Code of Federal Regulations.
This course of action will permit the agency to address the issue of
preemption in a deliberate, comprehensive manner in the context of its
forthcoming rulemaking to establish CAFE standards for 2012 and later
model years.

    Issued on: March 16, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-6061 Filed 3-17-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 44317-44318] [FR Doc No: 2011-18699]

=======================================================================

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. DI11-12-000]

Gay & Robinson, Inc.; Notice of Declaration of Intention and

Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the

Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.

    b. Docket No: DI11-12-000.

    c. Date Filed: July 11, 2011.

    d. Applicant: Gay & Robinson, Inc.

    e. Name of Project: Olokele River Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The proposed Olokele River Hydroelectric Project will

be located on Olokele River, near the town of Waimea, Kauai County,

Hawaii, at Latitude 22[deg]00'16.92'' N. Longitude 159[deg]37.20'' W.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16

U.S.C. 817(b).

    h. Applicant Contact: Charles Okamoto, President, Gay & Robinson,

Inc., P.O. Box 156, Kaumakani, Hawaii 96747; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed

to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or E-mail address:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: August

30, 2011.

    All documents should be filed electronically via the Internet. See

18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web

site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be

filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an

original and seven copies should be filed with: Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426.

    Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,

without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. Please include the docket number

(DI11-12-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed.

    k. Description of Project: The proposed Olokele River Hydroelectric

Project will consist of: (1) Water diverted from the Olekele River into

the 20-mile-long Olokele Ditch System; (2) a proposed 100-foot-long,

20-foot-wide forebay; (3) a proposed 42-inch-diameter, 4,175-foot-long

ductile iron pipe penstock, which will lead to a proposed 40-foot-long,

40-foot-wide, 25-foot-high prefab steel powerhouse, containing a 6.0-

megawatt Pelton turbine; (4) a short tailrace returning water to the

Olokele River; (5) a proposed 5-mile-long primary transmission line

connecting to a proposed new substation; and (6) appurtenant

facilities.

    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to

investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign

commerce would be affected by the proposed project. The Commission also

determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a

navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or

reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or

water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved

or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have

increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,

or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design

or operation.

    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file

with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This

filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three

digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also

register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or

other pending projects. For assistance, please contact FERC Online

Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,

or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection

and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing

list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit

comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,

.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission

will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who

file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules

may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or

motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified

comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must

bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/

OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of

the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any

motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the

Applicant specified in the particular application.

    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited

to file comments on the described application. A copy of the

application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If

an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing

comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an

agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: July 19, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-18699 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P