[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 59992]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No., CD16-19-000]

Amador Water Agency; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a
Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On August 15, 2016, the Amador Water Agency filed a notice of
intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant
to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4
of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The
proposed Ione Hydroelectric Station Project would have an installed
capacity of 447.6 kilowatts (kW) and would be located on an existing
16-inch-diameter gravity fed raw water transmission pipe. The project
would be located near the City of Ione in Amador County, California.
    Applicant Contact: Gene Mancebo, Amador Water Agency, 12800 Ridge
Road, Sutter Creek, CA 95685, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A proposed 90-foot long, 12-inch-diameter
intake pipe, (2) a proposed 447.6-kW turbine parallel to and replacing
the existing pressure reducing valve, (3) a proposed 260-foot-long 12-
inch diameter outlet pipe emptying into the supply reservoir, and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated
annual generating capacity of 1,400 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Satisfies
       Statutory provision                Description            (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by     The conduit is a tunnel,           Y
 HREA.                              canal, pipeline,
                                    aqueduct, flume, ditch,
                                    or similar manmade water
                                    conveyance that is
                                    operated for the
                                    distribution of water
                                    for agricultural,
                                    municipal, or industrial
                                    consumption and not
                                    primarily for the
                                    generation of
                                    electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by  The facility is                    Y
 HREA.                              constructed, operated,
                                    or maintained for the
                                    generation of electric
                                    power and uses for such
                                    generation only the
                                    hydroelectric potential
                                    of a non-federally owned
                                    conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended    The facility has an                Y
 by HREA.                           installed capacity that
                                    does not exceed 5
                                    megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended   On or before August 9,             Y
 by HREA.                           2013, the facility is
                                    not licensed, or
                                    exempted from the
                                    licensing requirements
                                    of Part I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff has preliminarily determined that the proposal
satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility
under 16 U.S.C. 823a, and is exempted from the licensing requirements
of the FPA.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: The deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://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_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application 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 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD16-19-000) in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 25, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20981 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


hypochlorite can achieve some level of inactivation but only under the most severe conditions.
Currently there is no method to inactivate BSE that may be present in food for human
consumption.

Section 2
-
37 -
2.4.2
Actions to Address BSE in the UK
Soon after the BSE epidemic emerged in the UK, several measures were taken to
decrease the incidence of the disease in animals and the potential exposure of humans to
potentially infected meat products (MAFF, 2000b).  The disease became notifiable in 1988,
requiring that all cattle suspected of having BSE be destroyed and sent for diagnosis.  Upon
confirmation of the role of animal feed in the epidemic in 1988, the UK banned the use of MBM
as ingredient in feed produced for ruminants.  In September 1990, there was a ban on the use of
Specified Bovine Offals (SBO) as an ingredient in feed stuff for any species.  This legislation
identified tissues with the highest concentration of infectivity (Hadlow et al., 1980, Hadlow et al.,
1982) and removed them from the animal feed chain.  Feed-borne BSE infections continued even
after the imposition of the feed ban, but at a much lower rate (Anderson et al., 1996).  In March
1996, the government of the UK imposed a total ban on the use of mammalian proteins in feed
produced for farm animals.  As a result of these ever more stringent bans to reduce the recycling
of infectivity, the annual incidence of BSE fell by 90% between 1992 and 1997.
During the first few years following the initial identification of BSE in Britain, the
epidemic was primarily an animal health concern.  That focus reflected the experience with
scrapie, which despite its presence in the human food supply for hundreds of years, had never
lead to a known case of human illness.  Precautionary measures where nonetheless put into place
to protect the human food supply, including a ban on the sale of brain and spinal cord from cattle
older than 6 months (material designated as specified bovine offal or SBO) for human
consumption.
In 1990 a domestic cat was diagnosed as suffering from a 'scrapie-like' spongiform
encephalopathy. This event generated concern that BSE might also be transmissible to other
species, including humans.  In 1994 the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
(SEAC) judged the risk of transmissibility to humans to be remote only because precautionary
measures had been put into place.  Scientists theorized that if BSE were transmitted to humans, it
would be likely to resemble CJD and suggested that surveillance be put into place to identify
atypical cases or changing patterns of the disease.
In 1996 a new variant of the human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (now known as variant
CJD or vCJD) was announced in the United Kingdom.  It was identified in a small group of

Section 2
-
38 -
people, all of whom were much younger than most individuals who develop CJD (Will et al.,
1996, CJD Surveillance Unit, 2001).  These cases shared clinical and neuropathological features
that differed from those of CJD.  As of August 31, 2001, the total number of definite and
probable cases of vCJD reported in the United Kingdom was 106, including 12 probable vCJD
deaths from which neuropathological confirmation will never be possible (CJD Surveillance Unit,
2001). Outside the UK, four vCJD cases have been reported in France, one in Ireland, and one in
Hong Kong.  Clinical, pathological and molecular studies provide compelling evidence that the
agent that causes vCJD is the same as that which causes BSE (Will et al., 1996, Collinge et al.,
1996, Bruce et al., 1997, Hill et al., 1997, Scott et al., 1999).
Following the announcement by the UK government that there appeared to be a link
between BSE and vCJD, several additional measures were taken to reduce human exposure to the
infective agent.  SEAC recommended in March, 1996 that carcasses from cattle aged over 30
months be deboned in licensed plants and that the trimmings be classified as SBO.  SEAC’s
suggestion was implemented in a 1997 regulation requiring the deboning of all beef from cattle
over six months old.  The ban on retail sales of bone-in beef was lifted in 1999 following a
continued decline in the incidence of BSE and the implementation of other control measures to
protect against the introduction of BSE into the human food supply.
Among other measures introduced were the compensation of producers for the loss of
animals due to regulations related to the protection of public health and the eradication of BSE.
Regulations aimed at eradicating BSE included the “selective cull” (implemented in 1997), which
targeted for eradication animals that were the same age as an identified BSE case from their herd.
Another regulation aimed specifically at protecting human health was the so-called “over 30
month scheme” (implemented in 1996), which prohibited the sale of beef from cattle over the age
of thirty months for human consumption.  The rational for this ban was that cattle over the age of
30 months could carry potentially substantial levels of infectivity in different tissues without
having yet developed clinical signs of the disease.  Table 2-2 outlines the chronology of the
regulations implemented in the UK following the initial outbreak of BSE in 1986.

Section 2
-
39 -
Table 2-2
Chronology BSE-Related Regulatory Actions in the UK
Year Regulatory Action
1988 Compulsory notification
Ruminant feed ban
Slaughter compensation
1989
Bovine offal prohibition: banned the use of SBO for human consumption
1990 Bovine identification
Marking and breeding records
Selective culling
Ban on the feed of SBO to any animals
1991
Control exports of bovine offal proteins and feeds containing such proteins
1994
Extended control of SBO
Prohibition on the use of mammalian proteins in ruminant feeds
1995
Removal of spinal cord from bovine over 6 months
1996
Prohibition on the use of mammalian MBM in feed for livestock, fish and horses
The over 30 months scheme
1997 Beef-bone regulations
1998
EU lifted ban on the export of UK beef
1999
Prohibition on the retail sale of bone-in beef lifted
2000
EU decision to test all cattle aged over 30 months presented for human consumption
(implemented in 2001).
2.4.3
Actions to Address BSE in Europe
Other countries that have reported cases of BSE imported either animals or animal feed
from the UK.  It is estimated that a total of 58,000 adult breeding cattle were exported from the
UK between 1985 and 1990.  The UK also exported MBM during the years that the BSE agent is
thought to have been present in rendering products from the UK.  For example, because the price
of MBM in England fell in 1989, exports of MBM doubled during that year (e.g, 15,000 tons of
MBM were exported to France alone in 1989) (Taylor and Woodgate, 1997).

Section 2
-
40 -
Cases of BSE have been reported in several countries.  Some of these cases occurred in
animals directly imported from the UK or in cattle fed with feed containing UK MBM.
Following export of the disease from the UK, small epidemics were observed in Northern Ireland,
Switzerland, France, and Portugal, presumably caused by the rendering and feeding of material
from diseased animals.  Few countries in Europe have not reported any BSE cases.  Since the
detection of BSE depends on the characteristics of the surveillance system, the absence of a
reported case does not rule out the presence of the disease.
Due to the potential spread of BSE to other countries, the European Union and other
international organizations have taken a wide range of measures to protect human and animal
health and to stop the spread of the epizootic (European Commission, 2001). Some of the most
important measures that have been taken by the international community include the following:
•
The World Health Organization (WHO) in 1996 recommended that all countries
ban the use of ruminant tissues in ruminant feed.
•
In 1996, the European Commission banned the export of British live cattle, beef,
semen, embryos, and all products produced from slaughter in the United
Kingdom.
•
The Office International des Epizzoties (OIE), the world organization for animal
health, has codified the requirements for member countries to be considered BSE
free.  A risk assessment of the potential hazards is a pre-requisite.
•
Feed bans in other countries:  Since 1996, many countries started implementation
of feed bans.
•
In 2000, the Scientific Steering Committee of the EU reported the assessment of
the geographical risk of BSE for 25 countries.  This assessment considers the
stability of the system and the likelihood of BSE occurring in the country (SSC,
2000c).
•
In 2000, the European Commission adopted the decision to remove specified
BSE risk materials from the feed chain and from human food.
•
In 2000, the European Commission prohibited the use of certain animal by-
products, including MBM, and blood meal (but excluding milk, or fish meal)
from non-ruminants in feed for any farm animal species (effective January 1,
2001).
•
In 2000, the European Commissions extended the SRM list to include bovine
intestines.

Section 2
-
41 -
•
In 2000, the European Commission adopted the decision to test all cattle over 30
months of age.  All animals over 30 months that cannot be tested or that test
positive for BSE must be destroyed.
2.4.4
Measures to Prevent the Establishment of BSE in the United States Cattle
Population
After more than 11 years of surveillance of high-risk animals, no confirmed cases of BSE
have been reported in the United States.  In cooperation with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) has taken measures in
prevention, education, surveillance, and response to reduce the risk of the introduction of BSE
into the U.S. cattle population.
BSE became a reportable disease in the U.S. in 1986 (see Title 9 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 71 and 161).  As a result, USDA must be notified of suspect cases.
Restrictions on imports from BSE countries have been in place since 1989, and active
surveillance efforts began in 1990.  As part of its surveillance effort, USDA has attempted to
determine the disposition of cattle that were imported from the UK and the Republic of Ireland
between 1980 and 1989.  The Department continues to closely monitor the cattle in this group
that have been located and are still alive.
In 1989, APHIS banned the import of all ruminants and restricted the importation of
certain cattle products from the United Kingdom and other countries where BSE was diagnosed.
In 1991, APHIS restricted the import of ruminant meat and edible products and banned most
byproducts of ruminant origin from countries known to have BSE in a native animal (Title 9
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 94.18 and 95.4).  Countries whose products were restricted due
to BSE prior to 1997 included:  the UK (1989), the Republic of Ireland (1989), Switzerland
(1990), Oman (1990), France (1991), and Portugal (1994).  In 1997, the US government
prohibited the import of live ruminants and most ruminant products from all of Europe until a
thorough assessment of the risks is conducted (USDA-APHIS, 2000b).  In December, 2000,
restrictions included a ban in the importation of all processed animal proteins regardless the
species, offal, tankage, ruminant fat, glands, processed fats and oils, and some tallow.  The
importation restrictions in 2001 included a ban in the import of all ruminant meat, meat products
and other edible ruminant products that were stored, processed or otherwise associated with a

Section 2
-
42 -
facility located in Europe or Oman.  In 1990, APHIS developed a plan to respond to a BSE case
in the U.S.  This plan was updated by the APHIS-FSIS BSE working group in 1996.
FSIS performs ante mortem slaughter inspections at all federally inspected slaughter
establishments and veterinary medical officers and food inspectors routinely evaluate animals for
central nervous system disorders.  Animals exhibiting suspicious CNS signs that may be
indicative of BSE or any other reportable disease are withheld from slaughter.  In such cases,
Veterinary Services is notified.  FSIS maintains a database containing information on ante
mortem and post mortem condemnations triggered by these and other conditions.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) controls animal feed, thought to be the main
exposure medium for BSE.  FDA prohibits the use of most mammalian protein in the
manufacture of animal feeds administered to ruminants (Food and Drug Administration, 1997).
This regulation is frequently referred to as the “feed ban.”  The regulation exempts the following
products:  blood and blood byproducts, milk products, pure porcine and pure equine proteins,
plate waste, tallow, gelatin, and non-mammalian protein (poultry, marine, vegetable).  Exempted
products are considered to be non-prohibited material and all other mammalian protein is
considered to be prohibited material.
The regulation specifies procedures for those renderers, protein blenders, feed
manufacturers and distributors that produce prohibited material, non-prohibited material, or both.
Firms must keep records on the origin of the materials and label prohibited material “Do not feed
to cattle or other ruminants.”  Prohibited materials intended for export are exempt from this
requirement and instead must be labeled “For export only.”  FDA requires that renderers,
blenders, feed manufacturers and distributors selling both restricted and unrestricted products
ensure that the two types of proteins are kept separate throughout processing.  For example, there
are minimum requirements for clean-out of the production line directly after the processing of
prohibited material (direct cleaning, flushing, etc.) before subsequently manufactured material
can be considered to be non-prohibited.
In early January, 2001 FDA released results of a compliance survey of 9,947 rendering
and feed mills.  The data demonstrated that there is significant noncompliance with the feed ban
in segments of the feed industry (Food and Drug Administration, 2001b).  Table 2-3 summarizes
the results of this survey.

Section 2
-
43 -
Table 2-3
FDA Update on Ruminant Feed (BSE) Enforcement Activities (January 10, 2001)
Proportion of Firms in Compliance
Practice Renders
<s>a</s>
FDA Licensed
Feed Mills
b
Feed Mills  not
licensed by FDA
c
Firms whose products
were labeled with the
required caution statement
84% 80%  59%
Firms with a system to
prevent commingling of
prohibited and non-
prohibited products
72 91  74
Firms that followed record
keeping regulations
96-98 98
91
Notes
a.
For Renderers --Total number of inspections –  239, firms handling prohibited material – 180.
b.
For FDA Licensed Feed Mills – 1,240 total, inspected–- 846.  Of those feed mills inspected, 347
were handling prohibited material.
c.
For Non-FDA Licensed Feed Mills – 4,344 inspected (FDA does not know the total number
because they are not required to be licensed by the Agency, but the number could be between 6,000
and 8,000).  Of those feed mills inspected, 1,593 were handling prohibited material.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also taken steps to reduce the risk of
contaminating with BSE pharmaceuticals that contain or are produced with materials of bovine
origin.  These steps include the following:
•
In 1992, FDA recommended the use of scrapie/BSE-free sources for materials
used in dietary supplements.
•
In 1993, FDA recommended that cell lines used for biologics be BSE-free.
•
In 1993, FDA requested that bovine sourced materials, except gelatin, used in
manufacture of regulated products be restricted to BSE-free countries.
•
In 1994, FDA requested that bovine derived material for use in cosmetics and
dietary supplements not be sourced from BSE countries.
•
In 1996, FDA recommended the withdrawal of plasma and plasma products
made from pools of persons who later developed CJD.

Section 2
-
44 -
•
In 1997, FDA requested more restrictions on the use of bovine gelatin originated
from BSE countries.
•
In 1999, FDA recommended deferring the use of blood from donors with more
than six months cumulative residence in UK during the period from 1980 to
1996.
2.4.5
BSE Surveillance in the United States
In addition to measures intended to mitigate the risk of BSE becoming established or
propagated in the United States, the federal government has also implemented a surveillance
program to help identify BSE as soon as possible if it were introduced into the U.S.  Since 1986,
when BSE became reportable in the U.S., USDA has encouraged the submission of brain tissue
samples for testing, and has engaged in educating practitioners to look for and recognize the
disease.  Brain submissions are examined histologically, and immunohistochemistry has been
used since 1993.  USDA is considering the incorporation of rapid diagnostic tests for targeted
surveillance in the future (Linda Detwiler, personal communication, 2001).  Between 1990 and
July 2001, over 13,900 brains were examined.  For each of the last six years, the rate of
surveillance has been approximately double the International Office of Epizooties (OIE) standard
(OIE, 2001).  In 2000 and 2001, the number of brains examined was more than five times the OIE
standard.
Animals targeted for surveillance by APHIS include cattle exhibiting signs of neurologic
disease in the field (i.e., prior to being brought to slaughter), cattle condemned at slaughter for
neurologic reasons, rabies-negative cattle submitted to public health laboratories, neurologic
cases submitted to veterinary diagnostic laboratories and teaching hospitals, and a sampling of
cattle that are nonambulatory (“downer cattle”) at slaughter.  Although the signs exhibited by
downer animals are generally not typical of BSE, some have suggested that these animals are a
high-risk population based on anecdotal information that a TME outbreak could be linked to
feeding practices involving downer cattle (Marsh et al., 1991).  In addition, U.S. cattle inoculated
i.c. with North American scrapie strains developed signs inconsistent with BSE signs manifest in
affected animals in Europe but similar to those of “downer” animals (Cutlip et al., 1994, Cutlip et
al., 1997).  The APHIS surveillance approach takes into account regional differences in the
movement of animals.  For example, based on movement patterns, the U.S. is divided into eight
regions where adult cattle would typically live and exit the production system.  Based on the adult

Section 2
-
45 -
cattle populations in each region, APHIS has calculated regional surveillance goals for BSE based
on international standards as if each region were an individual country.
In addition to surveillance for the presence of BSE, The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) monitors the incidence of CJD in the U.S. by analyzing death certificate
information from multiple-cause-of-death data compiled by the National Center for Health
Statistics.  This information is also used to search for possible cases of vCJD in the U.S.  As of
September 2001, no such cases had been identified in the United States.  Nor had any change in
the incidence of CJD been observed.

Section 3
-
46 -
3 Methodology
This section has four parts.  Section 3.1 describes the simulation model developed as part
of this analysis to quantify the impact of introducing BSE into the U.S. cattle population on both
animal health and on potential human exposure to contaminated food products.  The description
of the model in Section 3.1 reflects assumptions that are part of our “base case” scenario.  This
scenario represents the present state of the U.S. cattle population, along with government
regulations and prevailing agricultural practices.  Section 3.2 describes the uncertainty analyses
(also referred to as a sensitivity analysis) conducted to determine how changing various
assumptions influences the model’s predictions.  Section 3.3 describes how we used the model,
with its base case assumptions, to evaluate the impact of alternative sources of infectivity on the
U.S. given current conditions.  These sources include spontaneous BSE, importation of from 1 to
500 BSE-infected cattle, domestic scrapie, chronic wasting disease, TSEs in domestic mink, pigs,
and chickens, and recycled food waste.  Finally, Section 3.4 evaluates alternative scenarios,
including Switzerland during the period when it is thought that country first imported BSE-
infected animals.  That evaluation, which compares empirically reported clinical BSE cases in
Switzerland during the period 1985 to 2001 to the corresponding number of clinical cases
predicted by the model, serves as an indicator of the model’s plausibility.  Section 3.4 also
describes our methodology for evaluating the possibility of spontaneous BSE in the U.S. prior to
the 1997 feed ban, the impact of importing infected cattle from the UK during the 1980s, and the
implementation of various risk management strategies in the U.S.
3.1
Simulation Model and Base Case Assumptions
The simulation model can be thought of as consisting of four components, as illustrated
in Figure 3.1.  The first component (Section 3.1.1) characterizes the lifecycle of cattle in the US,
quantifies the potential infection of animals at different points during this cycle, and characterizes
their ultimate disposition (slaughter, death due to natural causes followed by either disposal or
rendering, and death due to BSE infection followed by either disposal or rendering).  The second
component of the model (Section 3.1.2) describes how animals sent to slaughter are processed.
Tissue may be disposed of, sent to rendering, or prepared for potential human consumption.  The
third component of the model (Section 3.1.3) characterizes the disposition of material sent to
rendering.  That material may exit the system (e.g., because it will be disposed of, exported, or
used to produce feed for animals other than cattle) or end up in feed that is administered to cattle.

Section 3
-
47 -
The final component of the model (Section 3.1.4) quantifies infectivity in material presented for
human consumption.
3.1.1
Cattle Population Dynamics
Figure 3-2 further details the cattle population dynamics component of the simulation
model.  In particular, this component describes the rate at which cattle are born, the rate at which
animals are slaughtered, and the rate at which they die of other causes.  Cattle can become
infected when they are born as a result of maternal transmission.  Alternatively, they can be born
uninfected but become infected later as a result of exposure to BSE-contaminated feed.  Infected
animals may proceed to the clinical stage of the disease.  Alternatively, they may be slaughtered,
or die of other causes.  Likewise, animals displaying clinical signs may also be slaughtered or die
of other causes, including BSE.  Section 3.3 details the different ways in which BSE infectivity
could be introduced to the U.S. cattle population.
The model includes a detailed characterization of the cattle population dynamics because
many of the rates influencing disease prevalence depend on animal age, type, and gender.  Rates
depending on at least some of these factors include the rate at which healthy animals become
infected due to consumption of contaminated feed (this dependence stems from the influence of
age, type and gender on the amount of meat and bone meal (MBM) animals consume, and the
influence of age on susceptibility to infection given a specified exposure), the rate at which
animals are slaughtered, and the rate at which animals die of causes other than slaughter.
The remainder of this section summarizes the following base case assumptions:  1) the
number of animals in the U.S. cattle population by age, gender, and type (i.e., dairy or beef,
destined for production or breeding), their birth rate, slaughter rate, and rate of death from other
causes; 2) cattle consumption of bypass protein and blood meal by age, type, and gender; 3) the
dose-response relationship for cattle orally exposed to BSE and the influence of age on this
relationship; 4) the rate at which infected cows transmit BSE to their offspring; and 5) the
incubation period for BSE (i.e., the time between infection and when clinical signs become
apparent) and the time until death following the development of clinical signs.

Section 3
-
48 -
<IP_ADDRESS>  Size of Cattle Population, Birth Rates, Slaughter Rates, and Rates of Death
due to Other Causes
The simulation developed for this analysis requires specification of the number of
animals by age in months for each gender within each of three animal classes: dairy, beef, and
beef reproductive animals.  This last group represents those beef cattle that live beyond the age of
24 months for the purpose of providing beef calves.  Base case values for the cattle population
size appear in parameter <initsize> of the parameter group genesisVisitor (see Appendix 1).
Developing this information was complicated by the fact that available data sources do
not break down the age distribution in sufficient detail, and in some cases, combine groups that
must be characterized separately for the simulation.  For example, statistics published by the FSIS
Animal Disposition Reporting System (ADRS) (USDA-FSIS, 1998) report the slaughter rate for
dairy and beef cows combined, rather than breaking out the slaughter rate for each group
separately.  The development of this information has been further complicated by the fact that
some of the reported statistics do not appear to be consistent with each other.  For example, as
explained below, the reported number of steers and heifers slaughtered is consistent with birth
rates that imply a total cattle population of 140 million, rather than the true value of
approximately 100 million.  When forced to diverge from reported statistics for the purpose of
maintaining internal consistency, we do so in ways that minimize the impact of distortions on the
validity of the simulation results.  In the example described in this paragraph, our inflation of the
U.S. cattle population should have a minimal impact on simulation results because the rate at
which BSE spreads does not in general depend on this statistic .
3
Population size
The specific population values for each age/type/gender category were computed using
spreadsheet software and the birth, death, and slaughter rates described in this section.  The


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 71 (Friday, April 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 17991]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07592]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9032-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 04/03/2017 Through 04/07/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its
comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html
EIS No. 20170053, Final, USAF, NC, KC-46A Third Main Operating Base
Beddown, Review Period Ends: 05/15/2017, Contact: Hamid Kamalpour 210-
925-3001
EIS No. 20170054, Final, NOAA, AL, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Alabama
Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan I and Environmental
Impact Statement: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities,
Review Period Ends: 05/15/2017, Contact: Dan Van Nostrand<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170055, Final, FERC, PA, PennEast Pipeline Project, Review
Period Ends: 05/15/2017, Contact: Medha Kochhar<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170056, Final, USFS, ID, Designated Routes and Areas for
Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU), Review Period Ends: 05/15/2017, Contact:
Jennie Fischer<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Dated: April 11, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-07592 Filed 4-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64433-64434]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0475]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0095

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0095,
Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention and Safety Records,
Equivalents/Alternatives and Exemptions without change.
    Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork
burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
November 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0475] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND STREET SW., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2015-0475], and must be received by November 23,
2015.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005 issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0095.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 45666, July 31, 2015)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention and
Safety Records, Equivalents/Alternatives and Exemptions.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0095.
    Summary: The information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure that
an oil or hazardous material requirement alternative or exemption
provides an equivalent level of safety and protection from pollution.
    Need: Under 33 U.S.C. 1321 and Executive Order 12777 the Coast
Guard is authorized to prescribe regulations to prevent the discharge
of oil and hazardous substances from vessels and facilities and to
contain such discharges. Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR parts 154-
156 are intended to: (1) Prevent or mitigate the results of an
accidental release of bulk liquid hazardous materials being transferred
at waterfront facilities; (2) ensure that facilities and vessels that
use vapor control systems are in compliance with the safety standards
developed by the Coast Guard; (3) provide equipment and operational
requirements for facilities and vessels that transfer oil or hazardous
materials in bulk to or from vessels with a 250 or more barrel
capacity; (4) provide procedures for vessel or facility operators who
request exemption or partial exemption from

the requirements of the pollution prevention regulations.
    Forms: N/A.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of bulk oil and hazardous
materials facilities and vessels. The estimated number of respondents
is 180.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 1,440
hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 18, 2015.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-27041 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20530-20532]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0132]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Boom Days, Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY for the Boom Days Fireworks. This
zone is intended to restrict vessels from Doug's Dive, the NFTA small
boat harbor and a portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY
during the Boom Days Fireworks on April 16, 2011. This temporary safety
zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards
associated with a firework display.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 16, 2011 from 8 p.m. through
9:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0132 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0132 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail MST3 Rory Boyle, Marine Events
Coordinator, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because awaiting a comment period to run
would be impractical and contrary to the public interest in that it
would prevent the Captain of the Port Buffalo from performing the
function of keeping the boating public safe from the hazards associated
with a maritime fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate
action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life,
property and the environment. Therefore, awaiting a 30 day effective
period to run is impracticable and contrary to the public interest in
that it would prevent the Captain of the Port Buffalo from protecting
persons and vessels involved in and observing the event.

Background and Purpose

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks
display. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks
launched proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public
safety and property. Boom Days is an event established to celebrate the
removal of the ice boom in Lake Erie and the beginning of spring.
Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the
location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons
and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

Discussion of Rule

    A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of a
fireworks display in conjunction with the Boom Days Fireworks. The
fireworks display will occur on April 16, 2011 from 8 p.m. through 9:30
p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the NFTA small boat
marina known as Doug's Dive and part of the Buffalo Outer Harbor,
Buffalo, NY within a 370 foot radius from position 42[deg]50'57.70'' N,
78[deg]51'46.52'' W, 42[deg]50'56.25'' N, 78[deg]51'47.61'' W (NAD 83).
    All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port Buffalo or on-scene representative.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or on-
scene representative. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because of the minimal time that the area will be
restricted. Vessels may still transit with the permission of the
Captain of the Port Buffalo or on-scene representative. The Coast Guard
expects this area will have an insignificant adverse impact to mariners
from the zones activation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY on
April 16, 2011 from 8 p.m. until 9:30 p.m.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because of the minimal amount of
time in which the safety zone will be enforced. This safety zone will
only be enforced for 90 minutes in a low vessel traffic area. Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the effective period,
we will issue maritime advisories, which include a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone.
An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0132 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0132  Safety zone; Boom Days Fireworks, Buffalo Outer
Harbor, Buffalo, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters of the Niagara River, Niagara Falls, NY, within a 370 foot
radius from position 42[deg]50'57.70'' N, 78[deg]51'46.52'' W,
42[deg]50'56.25'' N, 78[deg]51'47.61'' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective period. This regulation will be effective and the
safety zone enforced from 8 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on April 16, 2011.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or
on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or on-scene
representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf. The
on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Buffalo will be
aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Buffalo or on-scene representative.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
R.S. Burchell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2011-8882 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31230-31231]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG22-116-000.
    Applicants: Ocean State BTM, LLC.
    Description: Ocean State BTM, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-117-000.
    Applicants: Rumford ESS, LLC.
    Description: Rumford ESS, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-118-000.
    Applicants: Madison BTM, LLC.
    Description: Madison BTM, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-119-000.
    Applicants: South Portland ESS, LLC.
    Description: South Portland ESS, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-120-000.
    Applicants: Sanford ESS, LLC.
    Description: Sanford ESS, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-121-000.
    Applicants: Madison ESS, LLC.
    Description: Madison ESS, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: EG22-122-000.
    Applicants: AE-ESS NWS 1, LLC.
    Description: AE-ESS NWS 1, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2320-011.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: TO18 Compliance Filing to be
effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220516-5244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1863-006.
    Applicants: Ingenco Wholesale Power, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Infomrational Filing on Reactive
Tariff ER20-1863 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1005-001.
    Applicants: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1339-002.
    Applicants: California Ridge Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report_California Ridge Wind Energy
LLC to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.

    Accession Number: 20220517-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1622-001.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report_Otter Tail Power Company to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5160.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2179-001.
    Applicants: Oliver Wind I, LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report_Oliver Wind I, LLC to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2401-001.
    Applicants: Oliver Wind Energy Center II, LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report_Oliver Wind Energy Center
II, LLC to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-682-002.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Progress, LLC submits a Petition for
Limited Waiver of Rate Schedule Provision.
    Filed Date: 5/13/22.
    Accession Number: 20220513-5205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1884-000.
    Applicants: Sanford ESS, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Sanford ESS MBR Application
Filing to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1885-000.
    Applicants: South Portland ESS, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: South Portland ESS MBR
Application Filing to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1886-000.
    Applicants: NextEra Energy Transmission Southwest, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Abandoned Plant
Incentive Rate Treatment of NextEra Energy Transmission Southwest, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220516-5279.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1887-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing of LGIA
among NYISO, LIPA, and LI Solar for SA2709 to be effective 5/3/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1888-000.
    Applicants: AE-ESS NWS 1, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: AE-ESS NWS 1, LLC MBR
Application to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1889-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-05-17 PSCo-BkCoU-Trans
Intercon Agrmt--Amnd-433-0.1.0 to be effective 5/18/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1890-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Alligator Creek Solar LGIA
Amendment Filing to be effective 4/17/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1891-000.
    Applicants: Ingenco Wholesale Power, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing on Reactive
Tariff ER20-1863 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1892-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electric) Corp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Borderline Sales Rate Sheet
Update May 2022 with Request for Notice Waiver to be effective 5/15/
2022.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1893-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, Ohio Power
Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: American Electric Power
Service Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: AEP
submits four Facilities Agreements re: ILDSA, SA No. 1336 to be
effective 7/17/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1894-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA, SA No.
4835; Queue No. AE2-315 to be effective 4/19/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220517-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/22.

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

    Dated: May 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11036 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4657-4659]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1474]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1007; FRL-8858-8; EPA ICR No. 1715.13; OMB Control
No. 2070-0155]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; TSCA Section 402 and Section 404 Training and
Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint
Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR,
entitled: ``TSCA Section 402 and

Section 404 Training and Certification, Accreditation and Standards for
Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting'' and
identified by EPA ICR No. 1715.13 and OMB Control No. 2070-0155, is
scheduled to expire on October 31, 2011. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1007, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention:
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1007. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2010-1007. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Michelle Price, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 566-0744; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

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

II. What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

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

III. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are
persons who provide training in lead-based paint activities and/or
renovation, persons who are engaged in lead-based paint activities and/
or renovation, and State agencies that administer lead-based paint
activities and/or renovation programs.

    Title: TSCA Section 402 and Section 404 Training and Certification,
Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and
Renovation, Repair, and Painting.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0155.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October
31, 2011. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This information collection request (ICR) combines
information collection activities defined in existing ICRs 1715.09 (ICR
for lead-based paint activities), 1715.10 (ICR addendum for the 2008
Renovation, Repair and Painting final rule), and 1715.12 (ICR for the
2010 Renovation, Repair and Painting opt-out and recordkeeping final
rule) covering the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
individuals or firms conducting lead-based paint activities or
renovation in or on houses, apartments, or child-occupied facilities
built before 1978, under the authority of sections 402 and 404 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2682, 2684).
    Sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of TSCA require EPA to develop and
administer a training and certification program as well as work
practice standards for persons who perform lead-based paint activities
and/or renovations. The current regulations in 40 CFR part 745, subpart
E, cover work practice standards, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, individual and firm certification, and enforcement for
renovations done in target housing or child-occupied facilities. The
current regulations in 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, cover inspections,
lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatement activities
(referred to as ``lead-based paint activities'') done in target housing
and child-occupied facilities. The current regulations in 40 CFR part
745, subpart Q, establish the requirements that State or Tribal
programs must meet for authorization to administer the standards,
regulations, or other requirements established under TSCA section 402.
Section 401 of TSCA defines target housing as any housing constructed
before 1978 except housing for the elderly or disabled or 0-bedroom
dwellings.
    Sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of TSCA require reporting and/or
recordkeeping from four entities: Firms engaged in lead-based paint
activities or renovations in target housing and child-occupied
facilities; individuals who perform lead-based paint activities in
target housing and child-occupied facilities; training providers; and
States/territories/Tribes/Alaskan native villages. This information
collection applies to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
outlined in this Abstract section.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 745). Respondents may claim all or part of a document
confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim
of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance
with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to range between
0.8 and 9.9 hours per response, depending upon the category of the
respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is
only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 367,815.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
Varies.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 3,312,524 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $149,223,301. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $149,223,301 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

 IV. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 497,229 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects: EPA's revisions to the
estimated number of respondents based on the number of respondents
reporting to the Agency under the prior information collection, EPA's
revisions to per-activity burden estimates to simplify some assumptions
and to make estimation methods consistent, and characterization as
Agency burden; some burden elements that had previously been described
as respondent burden. See the supporting statement for details about
revisions to burden estimates. This change is an adjustment.

V. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

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

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 19, 2011.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2011-1474 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 13540-13542]
[DOCID:fr22mr07-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55479; File No. SR-Amex-2006-114]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Clarifying the Continued Listing Standards for Units

March 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 4, 2006, the American Stock Exchange
LLC (``Amex'' 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
substantially by Amex. On February 22, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Section 1003(g) of the Amex
Company Guide to strengthen the procedures applicable to units when
their components fall below continued listing standards and clarify the
application of continued listing standards to individual components
comprising units once some (but not all) of the units have separated
into their component parts and (2) make minor, technical changes to
Sections 1003(a), (c), (d) and (f) of the Amex Company Guide. The text
of the proposal is available at Amex, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and on Amex's Web site at http://www.amex.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below, and the most significant aspects of such statements are
set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.

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

1. Purpose
    Section 1003(g) of the Amex Company Guide currently provides that
the Exchange will ``normally consider'' suspending or delisting units
if any of their component parts do not meet the applicable continued
listing standards. However, if one or more of the components is
otherwise qualified for listing, such component may remain listed. For
example, a unit comprised of both a common stock component and a debt
component would face suspension or delisting procedures if either the
common stock or the debt component no longer met its applicable
continued listing standards. As a result, if the debt component failed
to meet the continued listing standards for bonds, both the unit and
such debt component would be subject to suspension or delisting
procedures, but the common stock component could independently remain
listed and continue to trade on the

Exchange, provided such common stock component met the continued
listing standards for equity securities.
    The Exchange proposes to strengthen Section 1003(g) of the Amex
Company Guide so that in the event a component of a unit does not meet
its continued listing standards, the Exchange would no longer
``consider'' suspending or delisting the unit, but would commence a
formal, continued listing evaluation of such component and unit in
accordance with Section 1009 of the Amex Company Guide. Section 1009
sets forth the suspension and delisting procedures, timelines, and
requirements applicable to issuers identified as being below certain
continued listing standards. For example, an issuer of particular
securities that receives notification from the Exchange that it is
below the continued listing criteria for such securities must publicly
announce receipt of such notification and the policies and standards
upon which the determination is based.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Section 1009(j) of the Amex Company Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add language to Section 1003(g) to
clarify the applicability of certain continued listing standards
relating to components of units that have separated. When units in good
standing begin to separate into their component securities, the
remaining units that are still intact and the components of those units
which have separated may all be separately listed and continue to
trade, provided that they meet the applicable continued listing
standards. The proposal specifies that, in determining whether a
particular component meets the continued listing distribution standards
set forth in Section 1003(b) of the Company Guide, the distribution
values for units that are intact and freely separable into their
component parts and for separately-traded components will be
aggregated. For example, if 120,000 shares of common stock are publicly
held after their separation from their units, and 210,000 intact and
freely separable units are publicly held, the common stock will be
credited with having 330,000 shares publicly held, enabling it to
satisfy one of the distribution standards for common stock, which
requires at least 200,000 shares of common stock to be publicly
held.\4\ If the units cease to exist or are no longer freely separable
and/or listed on the Exchange, the separately-traded components will
still be required to meet their applicable continued listing standards,
but the distribution values will not be aggregated.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section 1003(b)(i)(A) of the Amex Company Guide.
    \5\ See proposed Section 1003(g) of the Amex Company Guide. The
Commission notes that under proposed Section 1003(g), if in the
above example the units are no longer freely separable into common
stock, there would be no aggregation of units with the common stock
for purposes of evaluating whether the units and comment stock meet
the continued listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will also consider suspending trading in, or removing
from listing, an individual component or unit if the distribution
values of such component or unit become so reduced as to make continued
listing inadvisable and despite the fact that the aggregated
distribution values satisfy the continued listing distribution
standards. In its review of the advisability of the continued listing
of an individual component or unit under such circumstances, the
Exchange proposes to take into account the trading characteristics of
the component or unit and whether it would be in the public interest
for trading in such component or unit to continue. The Exchange
believes that this proposal will enhance the transparency of its
continued listing standards.
    The Exchange also proposes to make technical revisions to Sections
1003(a), (c), (d) and (f) in order to consistently use the term
``issuer'' as opposed to ``company.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the
Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
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

    The Exchange did not receive any written comments on the proposed
rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which Amex consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2006-114 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-114. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All

comments received will be posted without change; 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 Number SR-Amex-2006-114 and should be
submitted on or before April 12, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5205 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P