[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74781-74782]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI16-3-000]

Leonard Matteson; Notice of Declaration of Intention and
Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI16-3-000.
    c. Date Filed: September 19, 2016.
    d. Applicant: Mr. Leonard Matteson.
    e. Name of Project: Matteson Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Matteson Hydroelectric Project would be
located on the Missouri River, near the town of Cascade, in Cascade
County, Montana.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b) (2012).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Leonard Matteson, 57 Tower Rock Road,
Cascade, MT 59421, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Jennifer Polardino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene
is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, protests, and motions to intervene 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<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any
filing should include docket number DI16-3-000.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Matteson Hydroelectric
Project would consist of: (1) A 42-inch water wheel located on a boat
dock and placed into the Missouri River; (2) a generating unit linked
to the water wheel; (3) a transmission line which directly connects to
the Northwest Energy utility; and (4) appurtenant facilities.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether
or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2)
would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3)
would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has
Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after
1935.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. You may also register online at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above and in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888
First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202)
502-8371.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a

party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to
intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for
the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', and
``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any Motion
To Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: October 21, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25967 Filed 10-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11674-11676]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03572]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80059; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules
6.62, 6.73 and Make a Conforming Change to Rule 6.47A

February 17, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 10, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 amend Rule 6.62 to eliminate Price
Improving Orders and Quotes, and amend Rule 6.73 to eliminate the
electronic and open outcry bidding and offering requirements associated
with a Price Improving Order or Quote, and make a conforming change to
Rule 6.47A. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.62 to eliminate Price
Improving Orders and Quotes, and amend Rule 6.73 to eliminate the
electronic and open outcry bidding and offering requirements associated
with a Price Improving Order or Quote, and make a conforming change to
Rule 6.47A. The Exchange proposes to eliminate these order types in
order to streamline its rules and reduce complexity among its order
type offerings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., Mary Jo White, Chair, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Speech at the Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global
Exchange and Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014) (available at
www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.U5HI-fmwJiw)
(``I am asking the exchanges to conduct a comprehensive review of
their order types and how they operate in practice. As part of this
review, I expect that the exchanges will consider appropriate rule
changes to help clarify the nature of their order types and how they
interact with each other, and how they support fair, orderly, and
efficient markets.'' Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of Price Improving Orders and Quotes
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate, and thus delete from its rules,
Price Improving Orders and Quotes, as defined in Rule 6.62(s).
    A Price Improving Order or Price Improving Quote is an order or
quote to buy or sell an option at a specified price at an increment
smaller than the minimum price variation in the security. Price
Improving Orders and Quotes may be entered in increments as small as
one cent. Because the Exchange has not implemented this functionality,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to delete the functionality
from its rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Though originally adopted as a competitive response to
another options market introducing price improving orders, the
Exchange never implemented this functionality for a variety of
reasons, including technology and because most options volume was
concentrated in Penny Pilot issues where price improving orders
would be of little or no value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reflect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete all
references to Price Improving Orders and Quotes in Rule 6.62(s), and to
the electronic and open outcry bidding and offering requirements
associated with a Price Improving Order or Quote in the second
introductory paragraph of Rule 6.73 and Rules 6.73(a), 6.73(b) and
6.73(c), and to delete in the Commentary to Rule 6.47A references to
Rule 6.62(s) and 6.73, as follows: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58079 (July 2,
2008), 73 FR 39365 (July 9, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-69) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to permit
use of a new order type known as Price Improving Orders and Quotes).

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

     Delete Rule 6.62(s), which defines Price Improving Orders
and Quotes;
     delete the second introductory paragraph of Rule 6.73,
which describes which options may be designated for penny price
improvement;
     delete Rule 6.73(a), which describes the electronic
submission process in connection with a Price Improving Order or Quote;
     delete Rule 6.73(b), which describes the open outcry
submission process in connection with a Price Improving Order or Quote;
     delete Rule 6.73(c), which describes the requirement to
electronically ``sweep'' any penny pricing interest in the Exchange's
System; and
     delete in the Commentary to Rule 6.47A references to Rules
6.62(s) and 6.73.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An affiliated Exchange recently eliminated Price Improving
Orders and Quotes. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-79875
(January 30, 2017), 82 FR 9256 (February 3, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-
03) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change amending rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \8\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\9\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that eliminating Price
Improving Orders and Quotes would remove impediments to and perfect a
national market system by simplifying the functionality and complexity
of its order types. The Exchange believes that eliminating these order
types would be consistent with the public interest and the protection
of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would
benefit from the removal of complex functionality. The Exchange also
believes that eliminating Price Improving Orders and Quotes would
benefit investors and add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's
rules because the functionality of those order types was not
implemented and therefore is not available. The Exchange further
believes that deleting a corresponding reference in Exchange rules to
deleted order types, and the associated bidding and offering process in
connection with a deleted order type, also removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that
members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the
Exchange's rulebook and better understand the order types available for
trading on the Exchange. Removing an obsolete cross reference also
furthers the goal of transparency and adds clarity to the Exchange's
rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but would rather eliminate
complex functionality and references to functionality that is not
available, thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules
easier to understand and navigate.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-16. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; 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-NYSEArca-2017-16 and should be submitted on or before
March 17, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03572 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22619-22620]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0427]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Devices;
Inspection by Accredited Persons Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 18,
2016.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0510.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Inspection by Accredited Persons Program Under the Medical Device User
Fee and Modernization Act of 2002--OMB Control Number 0910-0510--
Extension

    The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA)
(Pub. L. 107-250) was signed into law on October 26, 2002. Section 201
of MDUFMA added a new paragraph (g) to section 704 of the Federal,
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 374), directing FDA to accredit
third parties (accredited persons) to conduct inspections of eligible
manufacturers of class II or class III devices. FDA's guidance document
entitled ``Implementation of the Inspection by Accredited Persons
Program Under the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of
2002;

Accreditation Criteria'' provides information for those interested in
participating in this voluntary program.
    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63806), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for accreditation..........................................               1                1                1               80               80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: April 12, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-08893 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 73998]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-371-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (Enterprise 12-10) filing
to be effective 12/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121205-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-372-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (JP Morgan 156-4) filing to
be effective 12/5/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121205-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-373-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: NAESB Version 2.0 Extension of Time filing to be
effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20121206-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-374-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: NAESB Version 2.0 Extension of Time to be effective
12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20121206-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1631-001.
    Applicants: Energy West Development, Inc.
    Description: 12052012 Compliance Filing to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121205-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-86-001.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: NAESB 2.0 Compliance Filing to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121205-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-93-001.
    Applicants: Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C.
    Description: Freebird Compliance Re-Filing, Docket No. RP13-93-000
to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121205-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-99-002.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Empire NAESB v2 CF 2 to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121205-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/12.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: December 6, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29945 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53053]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC19-11-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2029-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: SCE's Response to Deficiency re GIA
& DistribServAgmt AltaGas SA Nos. 1027-1028 to be effective 7/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-104-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrence of EPE to APS
Service Agreement No. 367 to be effective 9/7/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-105-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Periodic Review of Variable
Resource Requirement Curve Shape and Key Parameters to be effective 12/
12/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-106-000.
    Applicants: Birdsboro Power LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate to be effective 12/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-107-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019 Capital Budget &
Revised Tariff Sheets for Recovery of 2019 Admin. Costs to be effective
1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-108-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA SA No.
4916; Queue No. AC2-070 to be effective 1/26/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-109-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Duke Energy Ohio submits IA
SA No. 5186 and Cancellation of IA SA No. 1958 to be effective 6/30/
2018.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-110-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Tariff Sheets for
Recovery of Costs for the 2019 Operation of NESCOE to be effective 1/1/
2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES19-2-000.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of KCP&L Greater Missouri
Operations Company.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/18.

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

    Dated: October 15, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22818 Filed 10-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 210)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61590]
[DOCID:fr31oc07-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0916; FRL-8489-5]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Control of Emissions From
Existing Other Solid Waste Incinerator Units; Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a negative declaration submitted
by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The negative
declaration certifies that other solid waste incinerator units, which
are subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean
Air Act, do not exist within the agency's air pollution control
jurisdiction.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0916, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-

line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4124<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses a Clean Air Act
section 111(d)/129 negative declaration submitted by the Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection certifying that other solid waste
incinerator units do not exist within its air pollution control
jurisdiction. This negative declaration was submitted on December 19,
2006. For further information, please see the information provided in
the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.
If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no
further activity will be contemplated. If adverse comments are
received, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this
proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested
in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    Dated: September 17, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E7-21448 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology Andrews, J. E., H. P. Nichols, J. E. Schmid, L. M. Mole, E. S. Hunter, III and G. R. Klinefelter. 2004. Developmental toxicity of mixtures: the water disinfection by products dichloro, dibromoand bromochloro acetic acid in rat embryo culture. Reproductive Toxicology. 19( 1): 111 116.

Balchak, S. K., J. M. Hedge, A. S. Murr, M. L. Mole and J. M. Goldman. 2000. Influence of the drinking water disinfection by product dibromoacetic acid on rat estrous cyclicity and ovarian follicular steroid release in vitro. Reproductive Toxicology. 14( 2000): 533 539.

Chen, J., G. C. Douglas, T. L. Thirkill, P. N. Lohstroh, S. R. Bielmeir, M. G. Narotsky, D. S. Best, R. A. Harrison, K. Natarajan, R. A. Pegram, J. W. Overstreet and B. L. Lasley. 2003. Effect of bromodichloromethane on chorionic gonadotropin secretion by human placental trophoblast cultures. Toxicological Sciences. 76( 1): 75 82.

Chen, J., T. L. Thirkill, P. N. Lohstroh, S. R. Bielmeir, M. G. Narotsky, D. S. Best, R. A. Harrison, K. Natarajan, R. A. Pegram, J. W. Overstreet, B. L. Lasley and G. C. Douglas. 2004. Bromodichloromethane inhibits human placental trophoblast differentiation. Toxicological Sciences. 78( 1): 166 174.

Goldman, J. M. and A. S. Murr. 2002. Alterations in ovarian follicular progesterone secretion by elevated exposures to the drinking water disinfection by product dibromoacetic acid: examination of the potential site( s) of impact along the steroidogenic pathway. Toxicology. 171( 2002): 83 93.

Goldman, J. M. and A. S. Murr. 2003. Dibromoacetic acid induced elevations in circulating estradiol: effects in both cycling and ovariectomized/ steroid primed female rats. Reproductive Toxicology. 17( 5): 585 592.

Kaydos, E. H., J. D. Suarez, N. L. Roberts, K. Bobseine, R. Zucker, J. Laskey and G. R. Klinefelter 2004. Haloacid induced alterations in fertility and the sperm Biomarker SP22 in the rat are additive: validation of an ELISA. Toxicological Sciences. 81( 2): 430   442.

Health Effects Reviews Komulainen, H. 2004. Experimental cancer studies of chlorinated by products. Toxicology. 198( 2004): 239   248.

Villanueva, C. M., M. Kogevinas and J. O. Grimalt. 2001. Drinking water chlorination and adverse health effects: a review of epidemiological studies. Medicina Clinica 117( 1): 27 35. [ Spanish]

Cancer Epidemiology Infante Rivard, C., D. Amre and D. Sinnett. 2002. GSTT1 and CYP2E1 polymorphisms and trihalomethanes in drinking water: effect on childhood leukemia. Environmental Health Perspective. 110( 6): 591 593.

Vinceti, M., G. Fantuzzi, L. Monici, et al. 2004. A retrospective cohort study of trihalomethane exposure through drinking water and cancer mortality in northern Italy. Science of the Total Environment. 330( 1 3): 47 53. Cancer and Other Toxicology Ahmed, A. E., J. Aronson and S. Jacob. 2000. Induction of oxidative stress and TNF a secretion by dichloroacetonitrile, a water disinfection byproduct, as mediators of apoptosis or necrosis in a murine macrophage cell line ( RAW). Toxicology in Vitro. 14( 3): 199 210.

Allis, J. W., B. P. Anderson, G. Y. Zhao, et al. 2002. Evidence for the involvement of CYP1A2 in the metabolism of bromodichloromethane in rat liver. Toxicology. 176( 1 2): 25 37.

Allis, J. W., B. L. Brown, G. Y. Zhao, et al. 2001. The effects of inhalation exposure to bromo dichloromethane on specific rat CYP isoenzymes. Toxicology. 161( 1 2): 67 77.

Allis, J. W. and G. Y. Zhao. 2002. Quantitative evaluation of bromodichloromethane metabolism, by recombinant rat and human cytochrome P450s. Chemico Biological Interactions. 140( 2): 137 153.

Coffin, J. C., R. Ge, S. Yang, P. M. Kramer, L. Tao and M. A. Pereira. 2000. Effect of trihalomethanes on cell proliferation and DNA methylation in female B6C3F1 mouse liver. Toxicological Sciences. 58: 243 252.

Fabrizi, L., G. W. Taylor, B. Canas, et al. 2003. Adduction of the chloroform metabolite phosgene to lysine residues of human histone H2B. Chemical Research in Toxicology. 16( 3): 266 275.

George, S. E., D. C. Wolf, L. R. Brooks, K. C. Bailey, M. J. Hooth and G. M. Nelson. 2004. Changes in cecal microbial metabolism of rats induced by individual and a mixture of drinking water disinfection by products. Cancer Letters. 204( 1): 15 21.

Geter, D. R., L. W. Chang, N. M. Hanley, M. K. Ross, R. A. Pegram and A. B. DeAngelo. 2004. Analysis of in vivo and in vitro DNA strand breaks from trihalomethane exposure. Journal of Carcinogenesis. 3( 1): 2.

Geter, D. R., M. H. George, T. M. Moore, et al. 2004. The effects of a high animal fat diet on the induction of aberrant crypt foci in the colons of male F344/ N rats exposed to trihalomethanes in the drinking water. Toxicology Letters. 147( 3): 245 252.

Kargalioglu, Y., B. J. McMillan, R. A. Minear and M. J. Plewa. A new assessment of the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of drinking water disinfection by products. In Natural Organic Matter and Disinfection By Products: Characterization and Control in Drinking Water. Eds. Barrett, S. E., S. W. Krasner and G. L. Amy. 2000. American Chemical Society.

Kargalioglu, Y., B. J. McMillan, R. A. Minear and M. J. Plewa. 2002. Analysis of the cytotoxicity and mutagenicity of drinking water disinfection by products in Salmonella typhimurium. Teratogenesis, Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis. 22( 2): 113 128.

Karrow, N. A., T. L. Guo, J. A. McCay, G. W. Johnson, R. D. Brown, D. L. Musgrove, D. R. Germolec, R. W. Luebke and K. L. White, Jr. 2001. Evaluation of the immunomodulatory effects of the disinfection by product, sodium chlorite, in female B6C3F1 mice: a drinking water study. Drug and Chemical Toxicology. 24( 3): 239 258.

Kundu, B., S. D. Richardson, C. A. Granville, D. T. Shaughnessy, N. M. Hanley, P. D. Swartz, A. M. Richard and D. M. DeMarini. 2004. Comparative mutagenicity of halomethanes and halonitromethanes in Salmonella TA100: structure activity analysis and mutation spectra. Mutation Research. 554( 1 2): 335 350.

Kundu, B., S. D. Richardson, P. D. Swartz, P. P. Matthews, A. M. Richard and D. M. DeMarini. 2004. Mutagenicity in Salmonella of halonitromethanes: a recently recognized class of disinfection by products in drinking water. Mutation Research. 562( 2004): 39 65.

Landi, S., A. Naccarati, M. K. Ross, N. M. Hanley, L. Dailey, R. B. Devlin, M. Vasquez, R. A. Pegram and D. M. DeMarini. 2003. Induction of DNA strand breaks by trihalomethanes in primary human lung epithelial cells. Mutation Research/ Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 538( 1 2): 41 50.

Lock, T., L. Cottrell, T. Soames, et al. 2004. Formic acid excretion in rats and mice exposed to bromodichloromethane: a possible link to renal tubule cell proliferation in long term studies. Archives of Toxicology. 78( 7): 410 417.

Merdink, J. L., R. J. Bull and I. R. Schultz. 2000. Trapping and identification of the dichloroacetate radical from the reductive dehalogenation of trichloroacetate by mouse and rat liver microsomes. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 29( 2): 125 130.

Merdink, J. L., R. J. Bull and I. R. Schultz. 2001. Toxicokinetics of bromodichloroacetate in B6C3F1 mice. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 21( 1): 53 57.

Minear, R. A. and M. J. Plewa. 2003. Comparative Genotoxicity Assessment of DBPs in Drinking Water. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association Research Foundation.

Mohamadin, A. M. and A. B. Abdel Naim. 2003. In vitro activation of dibromoacetonitrile to cyanide: role of xanthine oxidase. Archives of Toxicology. 77( 2): 86 93.

Mohamadin, A. M. 2001. Possible role of hydroxyl radicals in the oxidation of dichloroacetonitrile by Fenton like reaction. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 84( 1 2): 97 105.

Monarca, S., S. D. Richardson, D. Feretti, M. Grottolo, A. D. Thruston Jr, C. Zani, G. Navazio, P. Ragazzo, I. Zerbini and A. Alberti. 2002. Mutagenicity and disinfection by products in surface drinking water disinfected with peracetic acid. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 21( 2): 309 318.

Muller Pillet, V., M. Joyeux, D. Ambroise and P. Hartemann. 2000. Genotoxic activity of five haloacetonitriles: comparative investigations in the single cell gel electrophoresis ( comet) assay and the ames fluctuation test. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 36( 1): 52 58. Pereira, M. A., W. Wang, P. M. Kramer and L. Tao. 2004. Prevention by Methionine of Dichloroacetic Acid Induced Liver Cancer and DNA Hypomethylation in Mice. Toxicological Sciences. 77( 2): 243 248.

Plewa, M. J., Y. Kargalioglu, D. Vankerk, R. A. Minear and E. D. Wagner. 2002. Mammalian cell cytotoxicity and genotoxicity analysis of drinking water disinfection by products. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 40( 2): 134 142.

Racz, G., L. Sujbert, J. Bocsi and B. Szende. 2004. Rapid communication: water disinfection by products enhanced apoptotic activity in human lymphocytes. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 67( 17): 1315 1319.

Ross, M. K. and R. A. Pegram. 2004. In vitro biotransformation and genotoxicity of the drinking water disinfection byproduct bromodichloromethane: DNA binding mediated by glutathione transferase theta 1 1. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 195( 2): 166 181.

Schultz, I. R., J. L. Merdink, A. G. Gonzalez Leon and R. J. Bull. 2002. Dichloroacetate toxicokinetics and disruption of tyrosine catabolism in B6C3F1 mice: dose response relationships and age as a modifying factor. Toxicology. 173( 3): 229 247.

Simmons, J. E., L. K. Teuschler, C. Gennings, T. F. Speth, S. D. Richardson, R. J. Miltner, M. G. Narotsky, K. M. Schenck, E. S. Hunter, III, R. C. Hertzbert, III. and G. Rice. 2004. Componentbased and whole mixture techniques for addressing the toxicity of drinking water disinfection byproducts mixtures. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 67: 741 754.

St Pierre, A., K. Krishnan and R. Tardif. 2003. Evaluation of the influence of chloroacetic acids on the pharmacokinetics of trihalomethanes in the rat. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A. 66( 23): 2267 2280.

Tan, Y. M., B. E. Butterworth, M. L. Gargas and R. B. Conolly. 2003. Biologically motivated computational modeling of chloroform cytolethality and regenerative cellular proliferation. Toxicological Sciences. 75( 1): 192 200.

Tao, L., W. Wang, L. Li, P. M. Kramer and M. A. Pereira. 2004. Effect of dibromoacetic acid on DNA methylation, glycogen accumulation, and peroxisome proliferation in mouse and rat liver. Toxicological Sciences. 82( 1): 62 69.

Torti, V. R., A. J. Cobb, J. I. Everitt, et al. 2001. Nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity induced by inhaled bromodichloromethane in wild type and p53 heterozygous mice. Toxicological Sciences. 64( 2): 269 280.

Toussaint, M. W., A. B. Rosencrance, L. M. Brennan, et al. 2001. Chronic toxicity of bromodichloromethane to the Japanese medaka ( Oryzias latipes). Toxicologic Pathology. 29( 6): 662 669. Woo, Y. T., D. Lai, J. L. McLain, et al. 2002. Use of mechanism based structure activity relationships analysis in carcinogenic potential ranking for drinking water disinfection by products. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110: 75 87 Suppl.

Wright, J. M., J. Schwartz, T. Vartiainen, J. Mäki Paakkanen, L. Altshul, J. J. Harrington and D. W. Dockery. 2002. 3 Chloro 4( dichloromethyl) 5 hydroxy 2( 5H) furanone ( MX) and mutagenic activity in Massachusetts drinking water. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110( 2): 157 164.

Xu, X., T. Mariano, J. D. Laskin and C. P. Weisel. 2002. Percutaneous absorption of trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids and haloketones. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 184( 1): 19 26.

Risk Assessment Ashbolt, N. J. 2004. Risk analysis of drinking water microbial contamination versus disinfection by products ( DBPs). Toxicology. 198( 1 3): 255 262.

Chen, C. W. and H. Gibb. 2003. Procedures for calculating cessation lag. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 38: 157 165.

Constan, A. A., B. A. Wong, J. I. Everitt and B. E. Butterworth. 2002. Chloroform inhalation exposure conditions necessary to initiate liver toxicity in female B6C3F1 mice. Toxicological Sciences. 66( 2): 201 208.

Da Silva, M. L., G. Charest Tardif, K. Krishnan, et al. 2000. Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic interactions between orally administered trihalomethanes in the rat. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 60( 5): 343 353.

Griffiths, C. W., C. Dockins, N. Owens, N. B. Simon and D. A. Axelrad. 2002. What to do at low doses: a bounding approach for economic analysis. Risk Analysis. 22( 4): 679 688.

Hsu, C. H., W. L. Jeng, R. M. Chang, L. C. Chien and B. C. Han. 2001. Estimation of potential lifetime cancer risks for trihalomethanes from consuming chlorinated drinking water in Taiwan. Environmental Research. 85( 2): 77 82.

Lee, S. C., H. Guo, S. M. Lam and S. L. Lau. 2004. Multipathway risk assessment on disinfection by products of drinking water in Hong Kong. Environmental Research. 94( 1): 47 56.

Levesque, B., P. Ayotte, R. Tardif, et al. 2002. Cancer risk associated with household exposure to chloroform. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A. 65( 7): 489 502.

Lynberg, M., J. R. Nuckols, P. Langlois, et al. 2001. Assessing exposure to disinfection by products in women of reproductive age living in Corpus Christi, Texas, and Cobb County, Georgia: Descriptive results and methods. Environmental Health Perspectives. 109( 6): 597 604. Meek, M. E., R. Beauchamp, G. Long, D. Moir, L. Turner and M. Walker. 2002. Chloroform: exposure estimation, hazard characterization, and exposure response analysis. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. 5( 3): 283 334. Review.

Moudgal, C. J., J. C. Lipscomb and R. M. Bruce. 2000. Potential health effects of drinking water disinfection byproducts using quantitative structure toxicity relationship. Toxicology. 147: 109 131.

Richardson, S. D., J. E. Simmons and G. Rice. 2002. Disinfection by products: the next generation. Environmental Science and Technology. 36( 9): 198A 205A.

Sadiq, R. and M. J. Rodriguez. 2004. Fuzzy synthetic evaluation of disinfection by products a risk based indexing system. Journal of Environmental Management. 73( 1): 1 13.

Saghir, S. A. and I. R. Schultz. 2002. Low dose oral bioavailability of dichloroacetate in naive and GST zeta depleted F344 rats. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110( 8): 757 763.

Schultz, I. R. and S. Sylvestor. 2001. Stereospecific toxicokinetics of bromochloro and chlorofluoroacetate: Effect of GST zeta depletion. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 175( 2): 104 113.

Teuschler, L. K. and J. E. Simmons. 2003. Approaching the toxicity of disinfection by products in drinking water as a mixtures problem. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 95( 6): 131 138.

Teuschler, L. K., G. E. Rice, C. R. Wilkes, J. R. Lipscomb and F. W. Power. 2004. A feasibility study of cumulative risk assessment methods for drinking water disinfection by product mixtures. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 67: 755 777.

Tokmak, B., G. Capar, F. B. Dilek and U. Yetis. 2004. Trihalomethanes and associated potential cancer risks in the water supply in Ankara, Turkey. Environmental Research. 96( 3): 345 352.

U. S. EPA. 2003. The Feasibility of Performing Cumulative Risk Assessments for Mixtures of Disinfection By Products in Drinking Water. EPA/ 600/ R 03/ 051. ORD/ NCEA Cincinnati, OH. http:// cfpub. epa. gov/ ncea/ cfm/ recordisplay. cfm? deid= 18494.

Exposure Routes Arbuckle, T. E., S. E. Hrudey, S. W. Krasner, J. R. Nuckols, S. D. Richardson, P. Singer, P. Mendola, L. Dodds, C. Weisel, D. L. Ashley, K. L. Froese, R. A. Pegram, I. R. Schultz, J. Reif, A. M. Bachand, F. M. Benoit, M. Lynberg, C. Poole and K. Waller. 2002. Assessing exposure in epidemiologic studies to disinfection by products in drinking water: report from an international workshop. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110( Suppl. 1): 53 60.

Batterman, S., A. T. Huang, S. G. Wang, et al. 2000. Reduction of ingestion exposure to trihalomethanes due to volatilization. Environmental Science and Technology. 34( 20): 4418 4424. Batterman, S., L. Zhang, S. Wang and A. Franzblau. 2002. Partition coefficients for the trihalomethanes among blood, urine, water, milk and air. Science of the Total Environment. 284: 237 247.

Keegan, T., H. Whitaker, M. J. Nieuwenhuijsen, et al. 2001. Use of routinely collected data on trihalomethane in drinking water for epidemiological purposes. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 58( 7): 447 452.

King, W. D., L. Dodds, B. A. Armson, A. C. Allen, D. B. Fell and C. Nimrod. 2004. Exposure assessment in epidemiologic studies of adverse pregnancy outcomes and disinfection byproducts. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 14( 6): 466 472.

Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., M. B. Toledano and P. Elliott. 2000. Uptake of chlorination disinfection by products; a review and a discussion of its implications for exposure assessment in epidemiological studies. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 10( 6): 586 599 Part 1.

Prah, J. D., B. Blount, F. L. Cardinali, et al. 2002. The development and testing of a dermal exposure system for pharmacokinetic studies of administered and ambient water contaminants. Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods. 47( 3): 189 195.

Villanueva, C. M., M. Kogevinas and J. O. Grimalt. 2003. Haloacetic acids and trihalomethanes in finished drinking waters from heterogeneous sources. Water Research. 37( 4): 953 958.

Whitaker, H. J., M. J. Nieuwenhuijsen and N. G. Best. 2003. The relationship between water concentrations and individual uptake of chloroform: A simulation study. Environmental Health Perspectives. 111( 5): 688 694.

Wright, J. M. and T. F. Bateson. 2004. A sensitivity analysis of bias in relative risk estimates due to disinfection by product exposure misclassification ( available online at Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology [ 30 June 2004]).

Xu, X. and C. P. Weisel. 2003. Inhalation exposure to haloacetic acids and haloketones during showering. Environmental Science and Technology. 37( 3): 569 576.

Xu, X. and C. P. Weisel. 2004. Dermal uptake of chloroform and haloketones during bathing. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 1 8.

Zender, R., A. M. Bachand and J. S. Reif. 2001. Exposure to tap water during pregnancy. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 11( 3): 224 230.

Formation of Disinfection Byproducts and Occurrence Studies Batterman, S., L. Z. Zhang and S. Q. Wang. 2000. Quenching of chlorination disinfection byproduct formation in drinking water by hydrogen peroxide. Water Research. 34( 5): 1652 1658.

Can, Z. S. and M. Gurol. 2003. Formaldehyde formation during ozonation of drinking water. Ozone Science and Engineering. 25( 1): 41 51. Charrois, J., D. Graham, S. Hrudey and K. Froese. 2004. Disinfection by products in small Alberta community drinking water supplies. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 67( 20 22): 1797 803.

Chu, H. and M. J. Nieuwenhuijsen. 2002. Distribution and determinants of trihalomethane concentrations in indoor swimming pools. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 59: 243 247.

Clark, R. M., R. C. Thurnau, M. Sivaganesan, et al. 2001. Predicting the formation of chlorinated and brominated by products. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE. 127( 6): 493 501.

Dabrowska, A., J. Swietlik and J. Nawrocki. 2003. Formation of aldehydes upon ClO 2 disinfection. Water Research. 37( 5): 1161 1169.

Diehl, A. C., G. E. Speitel, J. M. Symons, S. W. Krasner, S. J. Hwang and S. E. Barrett. 2000. DBP formation during chloramination. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 92( 6): 76 90.

Duirk, S. and R. L. Valentine. 2002. Monochloramine loss in the presence of humic acid. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 4( 1): 85 89.

Duong, H. A., M. Berg, M. H. Hoang, H. V. Pham, H. Gallard, W. Giger and U. von Gunten. 2003. Trihalomethane formation by chlorination of ammonium and bromide containing groundwater in water supplies of Hanoi, Vietnam. Water Research. 37( 13): 3242 52.

Espigares, N., P. Lardelli and P. Ortega. 2003. Evaluating trihalomethane content in drinking water on the basis of common monitoring parameters: Regression models. Journal of Environmental Health. 66( 3): 9 13.

Gang, D. C., T. E. Clevenger and S. K. Banerji. 2003. Relationship of chlorine decay and THMs formation to NOM size. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 96( 1): 1 12.

Ivancev Tumbas, I. and B. Dalmacija. 2001. Effects of coagulation processes on aldehydes formation in groundwater treated with common oxidative agents. Water Research. 35( 16): 3950 3958.

Kim, J., Y. Chung, D. Shin, M. Kim, Y. Lee, Y. Lim and D. Lee. 2003. Chlorination by products in surface water treatment process. Desalination. 151( 1): 1 9.

Kitis, M., J. E. Kilduff and T. Karanfil. 2001. Isolation of dissolved organic matter ( DOM) from surface waters using reverse osmosis and its impact on the reactivity of DOM to formation and speciation of disinfection by products. Water Research. 35( 9): 2225 2234.

Kitis, M., T. Karanfil and J. E. Kilduff. 2004. The reactivity of dissolved organic matter for disinfection by product formation. Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences. 28: 167 179. Kitis, M., T. Karanfil, J. E. Kilduff and A. Wigton. 2001. The reactivity of natural organic matter to disinfection by product formation and its relation to specific ultraviolet absorbance. Water Science and Technology. 43( 2) 9 16.

Kitis, M., T. Karanfil, A. Wigton and J. E. Kilduff. 2002. Probing reactivity of dissolved organic matter for disinfection by product formation using XAD 8 resin adsorption and ultrafiltration fractionation. Water Research. 36( 15): 3834 3848.

Korshin, G. V., W. W. Wu, M. M. Benjamin and O. Hemingway. 2002. Correlations between differential absorbance and the formation of individual DBPs. Water Research. 36( 13): 3273 3282.

Lekkas, T. D. and A. D. Nikolaou. 2004. Development of predictive models for the formation of trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids during chlorination of bromide rich water. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. 39( 2): 149 159.

Mitch, W. A., A. C. Gerecke and D. L. Sedlak. 2003. A N nitrosodimethylamine ( NDMA) precursor analysis for chlorination of water and wastewater. Water Research. 37( 15): 3733 3741.

Mitch, W. A. and D. L. Sedlak. 2004. Characterization and fate of N nitrosodimethylamine precursors in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Science and Technology. 38( 5): 1445 1454.

Nikolaou, A. D., S. K. Golfinopoulos, M. N. Kostopoulou and T. D. Lekkas. 2000. Decomposition of dihaloacetonitriles in water solutions and fortified drinking water samples. Chemosphere. 41( 8): 1149 1154.

Nikolaou, A. D., T. D. Lekkas and S. K. Golfinopoulos. 2004. Kinetics of the formation and decomposition of chlorination by products in surface waters. Chemical Engineering Journal. 100( 1 3): 139 148.

Nikolaou, A. D. and T. D. Lekkas. 2001. The role of natural organic matter during formation of chlorination by products: A review. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica. 29( 2 3): 63 77.

Plummer, J. D. and J. K. Edzwald. 2001. Effect of ozone on algae as precursors for trihalomethane and haloacetic acid production. Environmental Science and Technology. 35( 18): 3661 3668.

Qi, Y., C. Shang and I. M. C. Lo. 2004. Formation of haloacetic acids during monochloramination. Water Research. 38( 9): 2375 2383.

Sadiq, R. and M. J. Rodriguez. 2004. Disinfection by products ( DBPs) in drinking water and predictive models for their occurrence: a review. Science of the Total Environment. 321( 1 3): 21 46.

Sharpless, C. M., M. A. Page and K. G. Linden. 2003. Impact of hydrogen peroxide on nitrite formation during UV disinfection. Water Research. 37( 19): 4730 4736. Uyguner, C. S., C. Hellriegel, W. Otto, et al. 2004. Characterization of humic substances: Implications for trihalomethane formation. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 378( 6): 1579 1586.

Westerhoff, P., P. Chao and H. Mash. 2004. Reactivity of natural organic matter with aqueous chlorine and bromine. Water Research. 38( 6): 1502 1513.

White, D. M., D. S. Garland, J. Narr, et al. 2003. Natural organic matter and DBP formation potential in Alaskan water supplies. Water Research. 37( 4): 939 947.

Wilczak, A., A. Assadi rad, H. H. Lai, L. L. Hoover, J. F. Smith, R. Berger, F. Rodigari, J. W. Beland, L. J. Lazzelle, E. G. Kincannon, H. Baker and C. T. Heaney. 2003. Formation of NDMA in chloraminated water coagulated with DADMAC cationic polymer. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 95( 9): 94 106.

Vikesland, P. J., K. Ozekin and R. L. Valentine. 2001. Monochloramine decay in model and distribution system waters. Water Research. 35( 7): 1766 1776.

Villanueva, C. M., M. Kogevinas and J. O. Grimalt. 2003. Haloacetic acids and trihalomethanes in finished drinking waters from heterogeneous sources. Water Research. 37( 4): 953 958.

Yang, X. and C. Shang. 2004. Chlorination byproduct formation in the presence of humic acid, model nitrogenous organic compounds, ammonia, and bromide. Environmental Science and Technology. 38( 19): 4995 5001.

Yoon, J., Y. Choi, S. Cho and D. Lee. 2003. Low trihalomethane formation in Korean drinking water. Science of the Total Environment. 302( 1 3): 157 166.

Zhang, X. G. and R. A. Minear. 2002. Characterization of high molecular weight disinfection byproducts resulting from chlorination of aquatic humic substances. Environmental Science and Technology. 36( 19): 4033 4038.

Zhang, X. R. and R. A. Minear. 2002. Decomposition of trihaloacetic acids and formation of the corresponding trihalomethanes in drinking water. Water Research. 36( 14): 3665 3673.

Analytical Methods Charrois, J. W. A., M. W. Arend, K. L. Froese and S. E. Hrudey. 2004. Detecting N nitrosamines in drinking water at nanogram per liter levels using ammonia positive chemical ionization. Environmental Science and Technology. 38( 18): 4835 4841.

Delcomyn, C. A., H. S. Weinberg and P. C. Singer. 2001. Use of IC PCR and measurement of tribromide to evaluate bromate levels in drinking water. Journal of Chromatography A. 920: 213 219.

Ikeda, K., R. Arimura, S. Echigo, Y. Shimizu, R. A. Minear and S. Matsui. 2000. The fractionation/ concentration of aquatic humic substances by the sequential membrane system and their characterization with mass spectrometry. Water Science and Technology. 42( 7 8): 383 390. Raymer, J. H., E. Pellizzari, B. Childs, K. Briggs and J. A. Shoemaker. 2000. Analytical methods for water disinfection byproducts in foods and beverages. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 10( 6 Pt 2): 808 815.

Richardson, S. D. 2003. Disinfection by products and other emerging contaminants in drinking water. Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 22( 10): 666 684.

Treatment Technologies Jyoti, K. K. and A. B. Pandit. 2004. Ozone and cavitation for water disinfection. Biochemical Engineering Journal. 18( 1): 9 19.

Kim, B. R., J. E. Anderson, S. A. Mueller, W. A. Gaines and A. M. Kendall. 2002. Literature review   efficacy of various disinfectants against Legionella in water systems. Water Research. 36( 18): 4433   4444.

Kimbrough, D. E. and I. H. Suffet. 2002. Electrochemical removal of bromide and reduction of THM formation potential in drinking water. Water Research. 36( 19): 4902 4906.

Kilduff, J. E., S. Mattaraj, A. Wigton, M. Kitis and T. Karanfil. 2004. Effects of reverse osmosis isolation on reactivity of naturally occurring dissolved organic matter in physicochemical processes. Water Research. 38( 4) 1026 1036.

Yavich, A. A. and S. J. Masten. 2001. Modeling the kinetics of ozone reactions with NOM in Huron River water. Ozone: Science and Engineering. 23( 2): 105 119.

Yavich, A. A., K H. Lee, K C. Chen, L. Pape and S. J. Masten. 2004. Evaluation of biodegradability of NOM after ozonation. Water Research. 38: 2839 2846.

Yavich, A. A. and S. J. Masten. 2003. The use of ozonation and FBT to control THM precursors. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 95( 4): 159 171.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40891-40892]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0374]

Waterway Suitability Assessment for Construction and Operation of
Liquefied Gas Terminals; Sabine-Neches Waterway, Vidor, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Jefferson Railport Terminal 1 (Texas) LLC, has submitted a
Letter of Intent and Preliminary Waterway Suitability Assessment to the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP), Port Arthur, TX regarding the
company's plans to construct, own and operate a waterfront facility
handling and storing Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG) at its Vidor, TX
facility located on the Sabine-Neches Waterway. The Coast Guard is
notifying the public of this action to solicit public comments on the
proposed increase in LHG marine traffic on the Sabine-Neches Waterway.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or
before July 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0374 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
notice, call or email Chief Petty Officer Jamie L. Merriman, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments or related material in response
to this notice. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our
final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific
section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a
reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    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 or a final rule is published.
    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).

Discussion, Basis, and Purpose

    Under 33 CFR 127.007(a), an owner or operator planning to build a
new facility

handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG),
where the construction, expansion, or modification would result in an
increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on
the waterway associated with the facility, must submit a Letter of
Intent (LOI) to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located.
Under 33 CFR 127.007(e), an owner or operator planning such an
expansion must also file or update a Waterway Suitability Assessment
(WSA) that addresses the proposed increase in LNG or LHG marine traffic
in the associated waterway. Jefferson Railport Terminal 1 (Texas) LLC,
located in Vidor, TX submitted an LOI and WSA on March 7, 2016,
regarding the company's proposed construction and operation of LHG
capabilities at its Vidor, TX facility.
    Under 33 CFR 127.009, after receiving an LOI, the COTP issues a
Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway
for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional
authorities. The LOR is based on a series of factors outlined in 33 CFR
127.009 that relate to the physical nature of the affected waterway and
issues of safety and security associated with LNG or LHG marine traffic
on the affected waterway.
    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the
proposed increase in LHG marine traffic on the Sabine-Neches Waterway.
The Coast Guard believes that input from the public may be useful to
the COTP with respect to development of the LOR. Additionally, the
Coast Guard intends to task the Area Maritime Security Committee, Port
Arthur, TX and the Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council with
forming a subcommittee comprised of affected port users and
stakeholders. The goal of this subcommittee will be to gather
information to help the COTP assess the suitability of the associated
waterway for increased LHG marine traffic as it relates to navigational
safety and security.
    On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard published Navigation and
Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, ``Guidance Related to
Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities''. NVIC 01-2011
provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to build
and operate LNG facilities. While NVIC 01-2011 is specific to LNG, it
provides useful process information and guidance for owners and
operators seeking approval to build and operate LHG facilities as well.
The Coast Guard will refer to NVIC 01-2011 for process information and
guidance in evaluating Jefferson Railport Terminal 1's WSA. A copy of
NVIC 01-2011 is available for viewing in the public docket for this
notice and also on the Coast Guard's Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2010s.asp.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223-1225,
Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number 0170.1(70), 33 CFR
127.009, and 33 CFR 103.205.

    Dated: May 27, 2016.
R.S. Ogrydziak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2016-14910 Filed 6-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P