[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40298-40299]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14603]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC11-6-004]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Staff
Review of Compliance Programs

    Commission staff coordinated with the staff of the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to conduct the annual oversight
of the Find, Fix, Track and Report (FFT) program, as outlined in the
March 15, 2012 Order,\1\ and the Compliance Exception (CE) Program, as
proposed by NERC's September 18, 2015 annual Compliance Filing.\2\ The
Commission supported NERC's plan to coordinate with Commission staff to
review the same sample of possible violations, thereby reducing the
burden on the Regional Entities of providing evidence for two different
samples. Commission staff reviewed a sample of 32 FFT possible
violations out of 161 FFT possible violations posted by NERC between
October 2014 and September 2015 and a sample of 100 CE instances of
noncompliance out of 499 CE instances of noncompliance posted by NERC
between May 2014 and October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 138 FERC ]
61,193, at P 73 (2012) (discussing Commission plans to survey a
random sample of FFTs submitted each year to gather information on
how the FFT program is working).
    \2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., Docket No. RC11-
6-004, at 1 (Nov. 13, 2015) (delegated letter order) (stating
``NERC's intention to combine the evaluation of Compliance
Exceptions with the annual sampling of FFTs to further streamline
oversight of the FFT and compliance exception programs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff believes that the FFT and CE programs are meeting
expectations with limited exceptions. Sampling for the 2015 program
year indicated that the Regional Entities appropriately included the
sampled possible violations in the FFT and CE programs and that these
132 possible violations have been adequately remediated. Commission
staff's sample analysis indicated a small number of documentation
concerns, particularly with regard to the quality of the information
contained in the FFT and/or CE postings. For example, Commission staff
found that several FFT or CE issues still lacked some of the
information requested in NERC's Guidance for Self Reports document and
necessary for the posted FFT or CE.\3\ This includes information such
as start or end dates, factors affecting the risk prior to mitigation
(such as potential and actual risk), and actual harm. Commission staff
subsequently reviewed the supporting information for these FFTs or CEs,
which provided a majority of the missing information. Commission staff
ultimately agreed with the final risk determinations for all 132
samples. Commission staff also noted a significant improvement in the
clear identification of root cause, which was identified in all samples
posted after the feedback calls from the previous year's survey. In
addition, Commission staff noted that the FFTs and CEs sampled did not
contain any material misrepresentations by the registered entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 138 FERC ]
61,193, at P 60 (2012).

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

    Dated: June 15, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14603 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 144 (Thursday, July 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45312-45314]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF22-7-000]

East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Planned Ridgeline
Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Ridgeline Expansion Project (Project)
involving construction and operation of facilities by East Tennessee
Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) in Trousdale, Smith, Jackson, Putnam,
Overton, Fentress, Morgan, and Roane Counties, Tennessee. The
Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making
process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the Project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission considers concerns the
public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that
could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of
public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document
on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the
Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA Process and
Environmental Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 20, 2022. Comments may be
submitted in written or oral form. Further details on how to submit
comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this
notice. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the
Commission invites you to attend scoping meetings to provide verbal
and/or written comments on the Project. A schedule of the scoping
meeting dates, locations, and times will be issued in a separate notice
at least two weeks prior to the date of the meetings.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written or oral comments during the preparation
of the environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on May 20, 2022, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. PF22-7-000 to ensure they are considered.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that
eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle
eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these
matters.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' addresses typically
asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to
participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with
other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) under the links to Natural Gas Questions or
Landowner Topics.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New

eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (PF22-7-
000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to the methods listed above, we will also hold public
scoping meetings and mail notices to our environmental mailing list
identifying the date, time, and locations of these meetings later this
year.
    It is important to note that the Commission provides equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided orally at a scoping session.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription, which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances
and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe.
These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive
notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce
the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.

Summary of the Planned Project

    The Project is designed to deliver natural gas to the site of
Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant (Plant) if TVA
chooses to replace coal-fired generation at its Plant with gas-fired
generation at the same site. The Project would provide up to 300,000
dekatherms per day of new natural gas transportation capacity to the
Plant, and 95,000 dekatherms of parking capability.
    The Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Approximately 112 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline
extending from the discharge of the new electric-powered Hartsville
Compressor Station, mostly in East Tennessee's existing right-of-way,
in Trousdale County, Tennessee to a terminus near the beginning of the
East Tennessee Harriman Lateral and traversing through Trousdale,
Smith, Jackson, Putnam, Overton, Fentress, Morgan, and Roane Counties,
Tennessee;
     Approximately 5 miles of new 30-inch-diameter header
pipeline to connect to the suction of the new electric-powered
Hartsville Compressor Station from a new meter and regulating (M&R)
station mostly in East Tennessee's existing right-of-way in Trousdale
County, Tennessee;
     Approximately 8 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline
partially paralleling East Tennessee's Harriman Lateral right-of-way to
connect to the Kingston Plant in Roane County, Tennessee;
     The new Hartsville Compressor Station, including two new
6,000 horsepower electric-powered compressor units, in Trousdale
County, Tennessee;
     A new 8-megawatt solar array adjacent to the Hartsville
Compressor Station to partially power the station;
     A new M&R station to receive gas from Columbia Gulf
Transmission, LLC in Trousdale County, Tennessee;
     A new M&R station to deliver gas to the Kingston Plant in
Roane County, Tennessee;
     Modifications to the existing Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP and Midwestern Gas Transmission Company M&R stations in Trousdale
County, Tennessee; and
     Three new crossovers to connect the new 30-inch-pipeline
to the existing Line 3100-1 at the existing Gainesboro Compressor
Station, Clarkrange Compressor Station, and 22-inch Line 3100-1 at
milepost 148.89.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact
FERC at [email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 1,600
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, East Tennessee would maintain about 800 acres
for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining
acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 90 percent
of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by Commission staff will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation
of the planned project under the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     socioeconomics and environmental justice;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
planned project or portions of the project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Although no formal application has been filed, Commission staff
have already initiated a NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing
process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early
involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve
issues before the Commission receives an application. As part of the
pre-filing review, Commission staff will contact federal and state
agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the
preparation of the environmental document.
    If a formal application is filed, Commission staff will then
determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present
Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues. If
Commission staff prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may
be issued for an allotted public comment period. The Commission would
consider timely comments on the EA before making its determination on
the proposed project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of
Intent to Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued once an
application is filed, which will open an additional public comment
period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS that will be issued for
public comment.

Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the
comment period on the draft EIS, and revise the document, as necessary,
before issuing a final EIS. Any EA or draft and final EIS will be
available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
\2\ and the Commission's natural gas environmental documents web page
(https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant
email notification when the environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate in
the preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would
like to request cooperating agency status should follow the
instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The environmental document for this
project will document our findings on the impacts on historic
properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the planned project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number PF22-7-000 in your request.
If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure to
include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once East Tennessee files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to
intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully
described at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to.asp. Please
note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status
at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal
application for the project, after which the Commission will issue a
public notice that establishes an intervention deadline.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: July 22, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16184 Filed 7-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22539-22540]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-256-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 26, 2017, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed
in Docket No. CP17-256-000, an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
requesting authorization to (i) abandon in place the Morgan City
Compressor Station, which consists of one 9,100 horsepower (hp) gas-
fired turbine compressor unit, a compressor building, yard and station
piping, and appurtenant auxiliary facilities located in St. Mary
Parish, Louisiana, (ii) abandon in place one 9,100 hp gas-fired turbine
compressor unit and its compressor building at the Lafayette (also
known as Youngsville) Compressor Station, located in Lafayette Parish,
Louisiana, and (iii) relinquish the firm design capacity associated
with the facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202) 502-
8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates and Tariffs, Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC, 610 West Second Street, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301,
or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the e-Filing link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 30, 2017.

    Dated: May 9, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09803 Filed 5-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: PV Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>

OhSo Clean, Inc.

2E8116

	EPA has received a petition (2E8116) from OhSo Clean, Inc.,  315 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94111 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.940(a) to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for copper sulfate pentahydrate (CAS Reg. No. 7758-99-8) for use as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data and information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. NA-Remove

	2. Analytical method. An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is a necessary nutritional element for both animals (including humans) and plants.  Copper is found naturally in the food we eat including fruits, vegetables, meats and seafood.  It is found in the water we drink, the air we breathe and in our bodies themselves.  Some of the environmental copper is due to direct modification of the environment by man such as mining and smelting of the natural ore.  It is one of the elements found essential to life.  The National Academy of Science establishes Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) of vitamins and minerals for the diet. The RDA for copper ranges from approximately 400 micrograms per day (ug/d) in young children to 900 ug/d in adults.  Additionally, over-the-counter dietary supplements containing copper at levels ranging from 0.33 milligram (mg) to 3 mg are available for individuals with low levels of copper.   	The proposed use of copper sulfate pentahydrate as an inert ingredient in the formulation in antimicrobial products used on food contact surfaces is not likely to result in significant copper residues in food.  Potential exposure from this use is negligible, particularly when compared to consumption of supplements and natural dietary sources of copper. It is important to note that the proposed use as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations (<0.01% w/w) is very small in comparison to currently approved uses as an active ingredient in pesticide formulations (up to 99% w/w) which are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR § 180.1021.

B. Toxicological Profile

	EPA reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of an exemption from tolerance for a new pesticidal use of copper sulfate pentahydrate and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk (Fed. Reg. 71:46106-46110, August 11, 2006). As part of the review, EPA considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.  The nature of the toxic effects caused by copper sulfate pentahydrate are summarized below.   	There is adequate information available to characterize the toxicity of the copper ion. The copper ion is present in the adult human body with nearly two-thirds of the body copper content located in the skeleton and muscle. The liver is the primary organ for the maintenance of plasma copper concentrations.     Oral ingestion of excessive amounts of the copper ion is unlikely. Copper compounds are irritating to the gastric mucosa. Ingestion of large amounts of copper results in prompt emesis. This protective reflex reduces the amount of copper ion available for absorption into the human body. Additionally, at high levels humans are also sensitive to the taste of copper. Because of this organoleptic property, oral ingestions would also serve to limit high doses.     Only a small percentage of ingested copper is absorbed, and most of the absorbed copper is excreted. The human body appears to have efficient mechanisms in place to regulate total body copper. The copper ion occurs naturally in food and the metabolism of copper is well understood. The Agency has conducted a risk assessment in connection with the development and issuance of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Copper (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0558; Human Health Chapter). No endpoints of toxicology concern were identified for risk assessment purposes for a number of reasons. One of the foremost of these is the fact that copper is a required nutritional element for both plants and animals. Current available data and literature studies indicate that there is a greater risk from the deficiency of copper intake than from excess intake. Copper also occurs naturally in a number of food items including fruits, vegetables, meats and seafood.  	Although there is little known about the minimum levels of dietary copper necessary to cause evidence of adverse effect, this situation is likely due to the existence of an effective homeostatic mechanism that is involved in the dietary intake of copper and that protects man from excess body copper. Given that copper is ubiquitous and is routinely consumed as part of the daily diet, it is unlikely that the addition of use as an inert ingredient at <0.01% w/w in antimicrobial pesticides will result in any long term adverse effects.    Finally, sulfate has little toxic effect and is routinely used in medicine as a cathartic when combined with magnesium or sodium, the only adverse manifestation from this use being dehydration if water intake is concurrently limited.

	1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity studies for the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure exist for almost all copper species.  In general, copper has moderate to low toxicity (toxicity category II, III, and IV) based on acute oral, dermal, and inhalation studies in animals.  However, copper may be a severe eye irritant.  Most dermal irritation studies indicate Toxicity Copper is generally non-sensitizing in guinea pigs and rabbits.  Several acute toxicity studies specific to copper sulfate pentahydrate are available.  Copper sulfate pentahydrate has an acute oral LD50 of 790 mg/kg for males and 450 mk/kg for females, and has a Tox Category II classification for acute oral toxicity.  The acute dermal LD50 is >2,000 mg/kg, resulting in a Tox Category IV classification for acute dermal toxicity.  An acute inhalation study specifically for copper sulfate pentahydrate is not available; however, the other copper compounds have classifications of Tox Category II or III, with the exception of cuprous oxide, which is a Tox Category I. (MRID 43396201)

	2. Genotoxicity. Mutagenicity studies available from registrants indicate copper as cuprous oxide or copper sulfate pentahydrate are negative.  Mutagenicity studies from the literature indicate copper is not mutagenic.  Copper chloride at 0.001-10M concentrations was negative in the rec assay with Bacillus subtilis and negative in the reverse mutation assay with E.coli and Salmonella strains (Kanematsu et al., 1980).

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Reproductive and developmental studies available by the oral (gavage or diet) route of exposure indicate that in general, the main concern in animals for reproductive and teratogenic effects of copper has usually been associated with the deficiency of the element rather than excess.  Copper is a nutritionally required trace element that is necessary for maintaining the health of embryos, fetus, newborn, and infant.  Reproductive effects such as fetal death, resorptions, and infertility resulting from copper deficiency have been reported in rats and guinea pigs (Oster and Salgo, 1977).

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Copper is generally less toxic when administered in the diet than when administered in drinking-water or by gavage.  Orally, copper is irritative to the gastrointestinal tract, with no systemic effects reported.  Short-term feeding studies with rats and mice indicate decreased food and water intake with increasing oral concentrations of copper with irritation of the stomach at higher copper concentrations.  An NTP study (Hebert et al., 1993) has been conducted to examine the effects of cupric sulfate pentahydrate when administered in the drinking water for 2 weeks only, or diet for 2 weeks and 13 weeks.  Dehydration accounted for the deaths of rats and mice in the high dose groups in the drinking water study. Decreased body weight and food consumption was also observed in the two highest dose groups of rats and mice in the feeding study.   In summary, cupric sulfate administered to rats in feed or drinking water resulted in gastric changes (hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis of the squamous epithelium on the limiting ridge of the forestomach) and hepatic (inflammation), and renal (increased number and size of protein droplets in epithelium of the renal cortical tubules) damage.  Alterations consistent with microcytic anemia were observed in rats, but not in mice, in the 13-week study.  Cupric sulfate produced no effects on any of the reproductive parameters (sperm morphology, vaginal cytology) measured in rats or mice of either sex. 	A short-term drinking water study examined the influence of excess copper on the immune response of mice (Pocino et al., 1991).  Although immune response appeared to be related to the dose and duration of treatment, mice receiving 50, 100, 200, or 300 ppm of copper in the drinking water for 3 to 10 weeks had the same general health as controls with no changes in food ingestion or in mean body weight.  Consumption of drinking water was lower when copper concentrations were increased, and zinc was not measured, therefore, it was not known whether dehydration and/or zinc deficiency affected the immune response of animals.

	5. Chronic toxicity.   As observed in the short-term feeding studies, longer feeding studies indicate decreased feed intake with reductions in body weight gains, and increased copper concentration of the liver. Wistar rats were given either a standard diet with 10-20 mg copper/kg feed or diets supplemented with 3000, 4000, or 5000 mg of copper/kg feed for 15 weeks.  Dietary copper concentrations were approximately 0.5-1.0, 150, 200, or 250 mg copper/kg bw/day.  Copper concentrations increased in the livers of the rats on supplemental copper at 3-4 weeks, decreased significantly at 6 weeks, but were still elevated at 15 weeks.  Hepatocellular necrosis was observed in all supplemental groups from weeks 1-6, with regeneration beginning after 3-5 weeks.  Adaptation of the liver indicated by decreased liver copper concentration, regeneration, growth, and then tolerance was observed in livers of rats on 3000 to 5000 mg copper supplement for 52 weeks.  Rats on 6,000 mg/kg copper maintained hepatic overload and did not recover (Haywood and Loughran, 1985). 	Copper (metallic) is currently Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.  A review by ATSDR (2004) failed to locate studies regarding carcinogenic effects in humans following oral exposure to copper.  Mutagenicity studies from the literature indicate copper is not mutagenic.  Copper chloride at 0.001-10M concentrations was negative in the rec assay with Bacillus subtilis and negative in the reverse mutation assay with E.coli and Salmonella strains (Kanematsu et al., 1980).

	6. Animal metabolism. Copper is a naturally occurring element that is essential for the homeostasis of life.  The mechanisms that regulate the metabolism of copper in humans are not yet well understood.  However, the mechanisms regulating total body copper seem efficient, given the relatively small and constant body pool of copper. The efficiency of copper absorption varies greatly, depending on dietary intake.  Changes in efficiency of absorption help to regulate the amount of copper retained by the body.  In fact, when dietary copper is high and more copper is absorbed, mainly through the gastrointestinal tract, excretion of endogenous copper increases, protecting against excess accumulation of copper in the body.  Depending on the copper status in the body at the time, approximately 20 to 60% of dietary copper may be absorbed (JECFA #551).  Copper absorption is also affected by other factors such as species, age, chemical form, physiological status (e.g. pregnancy) and various dietary components.  When copper intake is low, little endogenous copper is excreted, protecting against copper depletion.

The proper regulation of copper in humans involves both the carrying protein ceruloplasmin and the excretion of copper mainly in the bile.  Dietary copper absorbed through the intestinal mucosa is transported via the portal blood to the liver.  Copper that is taken up by the liver is then incorporated into ceruloplasmin, released into the blood, and delivered to tissues (Turnlund, 1998, WHO Guidelines, 2004).  Approximately 60% to 95% of the copper in systemic circulation is bound by ceruloplasmin (IOM 2001, NRC 2000, IPCS 1998, Luza and Speisky, 1996).  It has been reported that humans generally have more of these ceruloplasmin proteins than animals, thereby enhancing copper efficiency in humans (IPCS PIM, 1991).  Most endogenous copper is excreted in the bile, another component in the regulation of the total body level of copper.  Very little copper is lost in the urine and sweat.  The biological half-life of copper in humans has been estimated to be about 4 weeks (Strickland et al., 1972; Dekaban et al., 1975).

The amount of copper that is retained in the body from the diet and drinking water typically depend on the copper status of the individual at the time.  A positive copper balance for humans is generally maintained if the dietary intake is approximately 2 mg/day.  As copper intake increases there is generally an increase in the amount retained, up to an intake of about 8 mg/day.  Copper intake beyond this rate generally results in no significant increase in the amount of copper retained (Schroeder et al., 1966; Evans, 1973).

In pregnant women, it is hypothesized that increased levels of plasma copper are not due to a greater efficiency of intestinal absorption of copper, but rather to increased biosynthesis of ceruloplasmin and mobilization of liver copper stores (Markowitz et al., 1955).

	7. Metabolite toxicology. NA-Remove

     	8. Endocrine disruption. Based on the available toxicology studies and literature for copper, there is currently no indication of endocrine disruption.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). 	 EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemicals, the Agency considers the toxicity of the chemical in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the chemical through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established. 	Dietary endpoints are not appropriate at this time for the copper risk assessment since copper is an essential element, the lack of systemic toxicity, and the exemption from a requirement of a tolerance (list CFR notices or see section of risk assessment).

	1. Dietary exposure. Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is a necessary nutritional element for both animals (including humans) and plants. It is one of several elements found essential to life. The human body must have copper to stay healthy. A variety of biochemical processes in the body to operate normally, copper must be part of our daily diet.  	Copper is needed for certain critical enzymes to function in the body. Copper deficiency can lead to disease.

	i. Food. The main source of copper for infants, children, and adults, regardless of age, is the diet. Copper is typically present in mineral rich foods like vegetables (potato, legumes (beans and peas), nuts (peanuts and pecans), grains (wheat and rye), fruits (peaches and raisins), and chocolate in levels that range from 0.3 to 3.9 ppm. A single day's diet may contain 10 mg or more of copper. The daily recommended allowance of copper for adult nutritional needs is 2 mg. It is not likely that the approval of this tolerance exemption petition would significantly increase exposure over that of the existing levels of copper.

	ii. Drinking water. Copper is a natural element found in the earth's crust. As a result, most of the world's surface water and ground water that is used for drinking purposes contains copper. The actual amount varies from region to region, depending on how much is present in the earth, but in almost all cases the amount of copper in water is extremely low. Naturally occurring copper in drinking water is safe for human consumption, even in rare instances where it is at levels high enough to impart a metallic taste to the water. Residues of copper in drinking water are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of 1.3 ppm has been set by the Agency for copper. According to the National Research Council's Committee on Copper in Drinking Water, this level is ``set at a concentration at which no known or expected adverse health effects occur and for which there is an adequate margin of safety.'' The Agency believes that this level of protection would not cause any potential health problems, i.e. stomach and intestinal distress, liver and kidney damage and anemia. It is not likely that the approval of this petition would significantly increase exposure over that of the existing levels of copper.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Copper compounds have many uses on crops (food as well as non-food) and ornamentals as a fungicide.

Dermal exposure. Given the prevalence of copper in the environment, no significant dermal exposure increase above current levels would be expected from the non-occupational use of copper sulfate pentahydrate.

Inhalation exposure. Air concentrations of copper are relatively low. A study based on several thousand samples assembled by EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory showed copper levels ranging from 0.003 to 7.32 micrograms per cubic meter. Other studies indicated that air levels of copper are much lower. The Agency does not expect the air concentrations of copper to be significantly affected by the use of copper sulfate pentahydrate.

D. Cumulative Effects

	The Agency believes that copper has no significant toxicity to humans and that no cumulative adverse effects are expected from long-term exposure to copper salts including copper sulfate pentahydrate.  For the purposes of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that copper compounds have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

    Copper sulfate pentahydrate is considered as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). EPA has also exempted various copper compounds from the requirement of a tolerance when used as aquatic herbicides (40 CFR 180.1021). Copper compounds, including copper sulfate pentahydrate, are also exempt from the requirements of a tolerance when applied to growing crops when used as a plant fungicide in accordance with good agricultural practices (40 CFR 180.1021).  All of these uses represent much higher potential for residues in food than use as an inert ingredient (<0.01% w/w) in antimicrobial pesticides. 	1. U.S. population. Copper is a component of the human diet and an essential element. In addition, no acute or chronic dietary end points were selected because no endpoints of toxicological concerns have been identified for risk assessment purposes. Use of copper sulfate pentahydrate is not expected to increase the amount of copper in the diet as a result of its use on growing crops and post harvest use. 	2. Infants and children. Copper is also a component of the diet of infants and children and also an essential element of their diet. Since no endpoints of concern have been identified, EPA has not conducted a quantitative risk assessment for copper sulfate pentahydrate. The Agency has also determined that the special FQPA safety factor to protect infants and children was not needed since there are no toxicity endpoints or uncertainty surrounding exposure.     Based on the information available for copper sulfate pentahydrate, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to copper sulfate pentahydrate residues.

F. International Tolerances

	The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for copper sulfate pentahydrate nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been established for any food crops at this time.

References

ATSDR (2004).  Toxicological profile for copper. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Dekaban et al. (1975). Kinky hair disease: a study of copper metabolism with use of 67Cu. Arch. Neurol. 32: 672-675.

Evans GW (1973). Copper homeostasis and metabolism in the mammalian system. Physiological Reviews. 53: 535-569.

Haywood S. and Loughran M. (1985).  Copper toxicosis and tolerance in the rat. II. Tolerance-a liver protective adaptation.  Liver. 5:267-275.

Hebert CD, Elwell MR, Travlos GS, Fitz CJ, and Bucher JR (1993).  Subchronic toxicity of cupric sulfate administered in drinking water and feed to rats and mice. Fund and Appl Tox 21:461-475.

IOM (2001) Dietary reference intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10026.html.  A report of the panel of micronutrients, subcommittees on upper reference levels of nutrients and of interpretation and use of dietary reference intakes, and the standing committee on the scientific evaluation of dietary reference intakes. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Washington DC, National Academy Press.

IPCS (1998).  Copper. Geneva, World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (Environmental Health Criteria 200).

IPCS PIM (1991). Poison Information Monograph. G002.  Copper and Copper Salts.  Http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pimg002.htm

JECFA #551.  Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives JECFA. Copper. WHO Food Additives Series 17.  Copper. http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v17je31.html

Kanematsu N, Hara M, and Kada T (1980). Rec assay and mutagenicity studies on metal compounds. Mutation Research 77:109-116.

Luza CS and Speisky HC (1996). Liver copper storage and transport during development: implications for cytotoxicity. 63:812S-820S.   Markowitz H et al. (1955). Studies on copper metabolism. XIV. Copper , ceruloplasmin and oxidase activity in sera of normal human subjects, pregnant women, and patients with infection, hepatolenticular degeneration and the nephrotic syndrome. J. Clin. Invest. 34: 1498-1508.  NRC (National Research Council) (2000).  Copper in Drinking Water. Committee on Copper in Drinking Water. Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences.  National Academy Press.

Oster, O and Salgo, MP (1977). Copper in mammalian reproduction.  Avd. Pharmacol. Chemother. 14: 327.

Pocino M., Baute L., and Malave I (1991). Influence of the oral administration of excess copper on the immune response.  Fund. and Appl. Tox. 16:249-256.   Schroeder HA, Nason AP, Tipton IH, and Balassa JJ (1966).  Essential trace elements in man: copper. J. Chonic. Dis. 19: 1007-1034.

Strickland GT, Bechner WM, and Leu ML (1972). Absorption of copper in homozygotes and heterozygotes for Wilson's disease and controls: isotope tracer studies with 67Cu and 64Cu. Clin. Sci. 43: 617-625.

Turnlund, J (1998) Human whole-body copper metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr 67 (Suppl):960S-4S.

WHO (2004)  Copper in Drinking-water. Background document for development of WHO guidelines for drinking-water quality. Geneva, World Health Organization. 23pp.


[Federal Register: August 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 47278-47280]
[DOCID:fr16au06-142]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54289; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Listed Company
Manual To Mandate Listed Companies To Become Eligible To Participate in
a Direct Registration System

August 8, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On May 6, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed
rule change SR-NYSE-2006-29 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal
was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2006.\2\ Two comment
letters were received.\3\ For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53912 (May 31, 2006), 71
FR 33030 (June 7, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29].
    \3\ Letters from Noland Cheng, Chairman, SIA Operations
Committee, Securities Industry Association (June 27, 2006) and Paul
Conn, President, Global Capital Markets, Computershare Limited, and
Charlie Rossi, Executive Vice President, Computershare Investor
Services (July 28, 2006).
    \4\ Concurrent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's rule
change, the Commission is also approving in separate orders similar
rule changes proposed by the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'')
and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''). Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 54290 (August 8, 2006) [File No. SR-Amex-2006-40]
and 54288 (August 8, 2006) [File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-008]. The
Commission has also published notice of a similar rule changed
proposed by NYSE Arca, Inc. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54126 (July 11, 2006), 71 FR 40768 (July 18, 2006) [File No. SR-
NYSEArca-2006-31].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The Direct Registration System (``DRS'') allows an investor to
establish either through the issuer's transfer agent or through the
investor's broker-dealer a book-entry position on the books of the
issuer and to electronically transfer her position between the transfer
agent and the broker-dealer of her choice through a facility currently
administered by The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'').\5\ DRS,
therefore, enables an investor to have securities registered in her
name without having a securities certificate issued to her and to
electronically transfer her securities to her broker-dealer in order to
effect a transaction without the risk and delays associated with the
use of securities certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently, the only registered clearing agency operating a
DRS is DTC. For a detailed description of DRS and the DRS facilities
administered by DTC, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37931
(November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-
DTC-96-15] (order granting approval to establish DRS) and 41862
(September 10, 1999), 64 FR 51162 (September 21, 1999), [File No.
SR-DTC-99-16] (order approving implementation of the Profile
Modification System).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Investors holding their securities in DRS retain the rights
associated with securities certificates, including such rights as
control of ownership and voting rights, without having the
responsibility of holding and safeguarding securities certificates. In
addition, in corporate actions such as reverse stock splits and
mergers, cancellation of old shares and issuance of new shares are
handled electronically with no securities certificates to be returned
to or received from the transfer agent.
    In order to reduce the number of transactions in securities for
which settlement is effected by the physical delivery of securities
certificates and thereby reduce the risks, costs, and delays associated
with the physical delivery of securities certificates, the NYSE will
impose its DRS eligibility requirement pursuant to proposed new Section
501.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (``Manual'').\6\ Proposed
Section 501.00 does not specifically require that securities must be
eligible for the DRS operated by DTC. Rather it requires listed
companies' securities to be eligible for a direct registration system
operated by a clearing agency, as defined in Section 3(a)(23) of the
Act,\7\ that is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section
17A(b)(2) of the Act.\8\ Therefore, while the DRS currently operated by
DTC is currently the only DRS facility meeting the definition, Section
501.00 will provide issuers with the option of using another qualified
DRS if one should exist in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The exact text of the NYSE proposed rule change is set forth
in its filing, which can be found at http://www.nyse.com/RegulationFrameset
.

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(23)(A).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to make a security DRS-eligible in the DRS currently
operated by DTC, the issuer must have a transfer agent which is a DTC
DRS Limited Participant.\9\ While some transfer agents currently acting
for NYSE listed companies are already eligible to participate in DRS,
other transfer agents may need to take steps to become eligible to
participate in DRS. In addition, some issuers may need to amend their
certificates of incorporation or by-laws to become DRS eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DTC's rules require that a transfer agent (including an
issuer acting as its own transfer agent) acting for a company
issuing securities in DRS must be a DRS Limited Participant.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR
58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To allow sufficient time for any such necessary actions, NYSE will
impose the DRS eligibility requirement in two steps. Because companies
listing for the first time should have greater flexibility to conform
to the eligibility requirements, proposed Section 501.00 will require
all securities initially listing on NYSE on or after January 1, 2007,
to be eligible for DRS at the time of listing. This provision does not
extend to securities of companies (i) which already have securities
listed on the NYSE, (ii) which immediately prior to such listing had
securities listed on another registered securities exchange in the
U.S., or (iii) which are specifically permitted under NYSE's rules to
be and which are book-entry only.\10\ On and after January 1, 2008, all

securities listed on the NYSE will be required to be eligible for DRS,
again excepting those securities which are specifically permitted under
NYSE rules to be and which are book-entry only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities which the NYSE permits to be book-entry-only
include all debt securities, securities issued pursuant to Section
703.19 of the Manual and nonconvertible preferred stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE is also amending Section 601.01 of the Manual (``Exchange
Approval of Transfer Agents and Registrars'') to require that any
issuer required to make a listed security eligible for DRS pursuant to
proposed Section 501.00 must maintain a transfer agent for that
security which is eligible either for DRS operated by DTC or by another
registered clearing agency. In addition, the NYSE is amending the
transfer agent agreements in Section 906 of the Manual to require
transfer agents for securities subject to proposed Section 501.00 to
agree that they will at all times be eligible either for the DRS
operated by DTC or by another registered clearing agency.

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received two comment letters in support of the
proposed rule change.\11\ The SIA Operations Committee (``SIA''), an
industry organization representing broker-dealers, stated that the
effect of the proposed rule change will be to reduce significantly the
number of transactions in securities for which settlement is effected
by the physical delivery of securities certificates, thereby reducing
costs, risks, and delays associated with physical settlement. The SIA
also contended that by increasing the number of DRS-eligible
securities, the proposed rule change is an important step in reducing
the number of physical certificates, a goal the SIA has long supported
in its efforts to promote immobilization and dematerialization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Supra note 3. The SIA and Computershare's comment letters
were written in support of the three similar proposed rule changes
filed by Amex, Nasdaq, and NYSE. Supra note 4. The NYSE Arca's
proposed rule change was noticed by the Commission subsequent to the
date the commenters submitted their comment letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Computershare, a registered transfer agent, stated that the
proposed rule change will help immobilize and eventually dematerialize
certificates in the U.S. market, which it believes will result in
benefits such as cost savings, increased efficiency, more accurate and
timely trade settlements, and reduced risk of loss for investors.
Computershare noted, however, that some challenges remain to be
overcome in the broker-dealer community before these benefits can be
realized. For example, Computershare contended, among other things,
that broker-dealers are not sufficiently educating their employees or
their customers about the inherent risks associated with owning
certificates or the benefits of owning in DRS. In addition,
Computershare stated that certain current industry processing practices
also need to be changed. Specifically, it believes that the industry
should ``default to DRS,'' a process whereby customers of broker-
dealers would obtain only a statement of their positions held on the
issuer's records rather than a certificate unless the customer
contacted the issuer's transfer agent directly to obtain a certificate.
Computershare urged the Commission to review and modify current
regulation to address these issues.

IV. Discussion

    Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires, among other things, that the
rules of an exchange be 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
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\12\ For the reasons described below, the Commission finds
that the rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of securities certificates has long been identified as an
inefficient and risk-laden mechanism by which to hold and transfer
ownership.\13\ Because securities certificates require manual
processing, their use can result in significant delays and expenses in
processing securities transactions and present the risk of certificates
being lost, stolen, or forged. Many of these costs and risks are
ultimately borne by investors.\14\ Congress has recognized the problems
and dangers that the use of certificates presents to the safe and
efficient operation of the U.S. clearance and settlement system and has
given the Commission responsibility and authority to address these
issues.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49405 (March 11, 2004),
69 FR 12922 (March 18, 2004), [File No. S7-13-04] (Securities
Transaction Settlement Concept Release).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(2)(A). Congress expressly envisioned the
Commission's authority to extend to all aspects of the securities
handling process involving securities transactions within the United
States, including activities by clearing agencies, depositories,
corporate issuers, and transfer agents. See S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. at 55 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with its Congressional directives, in its efforts to
improve efficiencies and decrease risks associated with processing
securities transactions, the Commission has long advocated a reduction
in the use of certificates in the trading environment by immobilizing
or dematerializing securities and has encouraged the use of
alternatives to holding securities in certificated form. Among other
things, the Commission has approved the rule filings of self-regulatory
organizations that require their members to use the facilities of a
securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions
in depository-eligible securities \16\ and that require any security
listed for trading must be depository eligible if possible.\17\ More
recently the Commission has approved the implementation and expansion
of DRS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32455 (June 11, 1993),
58 FR 33679 (June 18, 1993)(order approving rules requiring members,
member organizations, and affiliated members of the New York Stock
Exchange, National Association of Securities Dealers, American Stock
Exchange, Midwest Stock Exchange, Boston Stock Exchange, Pacific
Stock Exchange, and Philadelphia Stock Exchange to use the
facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement
of all transactions in depository-eligible securities with another
financial intermediary).
    \17\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35798 (June 1, 1995),
60 FR 30909 (June 12, 1995), [File Nos. SR-Amex-95-17; SR-BSE-95-09;
SR-CHX-95-12; SR-NASD-95-24; SR-NYSE-95-19; SR-PSE-95-14; SR-PHLX-
95-34] (order approving rules setting forth depository eligibility
requirements for issuers seeking to have their shares listed on the
exchange).
    \18\ In 1996, the NYSE modified its listing criteria to permit
listed companies to issue securities in book entry form provided
that the issue is included in DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 37937 (November 8, 1996), 61 FR 58728 (November 18, 1996), [File
No. SR-NYSE-96-29]. Similarly, the NASD modified its rule to require
that if an issuer establishes a direct registration program, it must
participate in an electronic link with a securities depository in
order to facilitate the electronic transfer of the issue. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 39369 (November 26, 1997), 62 FR 64034
(December 3, 1997), [File No. SR-97-51]. On July 30, 2002, the
Commission approved a rule change proposed by the NYSE to amend NYSE
Section 501.01 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to allow a listed
company to issue securities in a dematerialized or completely
immobilized form and therefore not send stock certificates to record
holders provided the company's stock is issued pursuant to a
dividend reinvestment program, stock purchase plan, or is included
in DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46282 (July 30, 2002),
67 FR 50972 (August 6, 2002), [File No. SR-NYSE-2001-33].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the U.S. markets have made great progress in immobilization
and dematerialization for institutional and broker-to-broker
transactions, many industry representatives believe that the small
percentage of securities held in certificated form (mostly by retail

customers of broker-dealers) impose unnecessary risk and
disproportionately large expense to the industry and to investors. In
an attempt to address this issue, NYSE's rule change, along with those
of Amex and Nasdaq, should help expand the use of DRS. As a result,
risks, costs, and processing inefficiencies associated with the
physical delivery of securities certificates should be reduced, and the
perfection of the national market system should be promoted.
Additionally, those investors holding securities in listed securities
covered by the rule change that decide to hold their securities in DRS
should realize the benefits of more accurate, quicker, and more cost-
efficient transfers; faster distribution of sale proceeds; reduced
number of lost or stolen certificates and a reduction in the associated
certificate replacement costs; and consistency of owning in book-entry
across asset classes.
    The Commission realizes that some issuers and transfer agents may
bear expenses related to complying with the rule change. In order to
make a security DRS-eligible, issuers of listed companies must have a
transfer agent, which is a DRS Limited Participants.\19\ In order to
make an issue DRS-eligible, issuers may need to amend their corporate
governing documents to permit the issuance of book-entry shares. The
Commission believes, however, that the long-term benefits of increased
efficiencies and reduced risks afforded by DRS outweigh the costs that
some issuers and transfer agents may incur. Furthermore, the time
frames built into the proposal should allow issuers sufficient time to
make any necessary changes to comply with the rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For a description of DTC's rules relating to DRS Limited
Participants, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37931 and
41862. Supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule change should significantly reduce the
number of transactions in securities for which settlement is effected
by the physical delivery of securities certificates, the proposed rule
change will not eliminate the ability of investors to obtain securities
certificates, provided the issuer has chosen to issue certificates.
Such investors can continue to contact the issuer's transfer agent,
either directly or through their broker-dealer, to obtain a securities
certificate.
    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Commission finds
that the rule change is consistent with NYSE's obligation under Section
6(b) of the Act to foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with
respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange and, in particular, with the requirements of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29) be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13421 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Company X Pharma BDN Estimated Demand by year, country and customer, in kilogram CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 2006 Shipped to Customer Product CFC 11 CFC 12 2006 est DATA POINTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION. A COPY OF THE DATA IS AVAIL rams  2007 2008 CFC 114 Total CFC 11 CFC 12 CFC 114 Total CFC 11 CFC 12 CFC 114 ILABLE IN THE CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE DOCKET TO THIS RULEMAKING  2009 2010 Total CFC 11 CFC 12 CFC 114 Total CFC 11 CFC 12 CFC 114 Total Company X Pharma BDN Shipments by year, country and customer, in kilograms CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Shipped to Customer Product CFC 11 CFC 12 2005 DATA POINTS ARE CONFIDENTIA All Pharma BDN  2005 total 2004 DATA POINTS ARE CONFIDENTIA All Pharma BDN  2004 total 2003 DATA POINTS ARE CONFIDENTIA All Pharma BDN  2003 total 2002 DATA POINTS ARE CONFIDENTIA All Pharma BDN  2002 total CFC 114 Total TIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION. A COPY OF THE DATA IS AVAILABLE IN THE CONFIDENTIAL POR TIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION. A COPY OF THE DATA IS AVAILABLE IN THE CONFIDENTIAL POR TIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION. A COPY OF THE DATA IS AVAILABLE IN THE CONFIDENTIAL POR TIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION. A COPY OF THE DATA IS AVAILABLE IN THE CONFIDENTIAL POR RTION OF THE DOCKET TO THIS RULEMAKING RTION OF THE DOCKET TO THIS RULEMAKING RTION OF THE DOCKET TO THIS RULEMAKING RTION OF THE DOCKET TO THIS RULEMAKING


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65647]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26256]

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

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: EC15-18-000.
    Applicants: Perigee Energy, LLC, Great American Power, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application of Perigee Energy, LLC and Great
American Power, LLC for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5183.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2262-001.
    Applicants: Edgewood Energy, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: J-POWER Supplement to MBR
Update in Docket Nos. ER14-2262 & ER14-2263, et al to be effective 10/
30/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20141029-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2263-001.
    Applicants: Shoreham Energy, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: J-POWER Supplement to MBR
Update in Docket Nos. ER14-2262 & ER14-2263, et al to be effective 10/
30/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20141029-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2591-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Florida Power & Light Co.'s
Compliance Filing to Order No. 792 & 792-A Errata to be effective 8/4/
2014.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2604-001.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: OATT Order No. 792
Compliance Filing Revised to be effective 8/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2721-001.
    Applicants: Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Peetz Logan Interconnect,
LLC Order No. 792 and 792-A Errata Compliance Filing to be effective 8/
4/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2722-001.
    Applicants: Sagebrush, a California partnership.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Sagebrush, a California
partnership Order No. 792 and 792-A Errata Comp Filing to be effective
8/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2723-001.
    Applicants: Sky River LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Sky River LLC Order No. 792
and 792-A Errata Compliance Filing to be effective 8/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-209-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-
10-28 SEY, HILLS, StJms-NOC-TM-1 to be effective 12/31/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-210-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Interconnection Agreement
with Centennial Island Hydroelectric Company of New England Power
Company.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-211-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 1977R5
Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 10/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20141029-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-212-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2900R1
Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA NOA to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20141029-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/14.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES13-46-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to July 30, 2014 Application to amend
existing FPA Section 204 authority of Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA14-3-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC, Astoria Generating
Company, L.P., Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC, California Electric
Marketing, LLC, Crete Energy Venture, LLC, CSOLAR IV South, LLC, CSOLAR
IV West, LLC, High Desert Power Project, LLC, Kiowa Power Partners,
LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, New Covert Generating Company,
LLC, New Mexico Electric Marketing, LLC, Rolling Hills Generating,
L.L.C., Tenaska Alabama Partners, L.P., Tenaska Alabama II Partners,
L.P., Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd., Tenaska Gateway Partners, Ltd.,
Tenaska Georgia Partners, L.P., Tenaska Power Management, LLC, Tenaska
Power Services Co., Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P., Texas Electric
Marketing, LLC, TPF Generation Holdings, LLC, and Wolf Hills Energy,
LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the Tenaska MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 10/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20141028-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/14.

    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 29, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26256 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31239-31241]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13269]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0084-201135; FRL- 9312-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama,
Georgia, and Tennessee: Chattanooga; Determination of Attaining Data
for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia,
fine particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as ``the Chattanooga Area'' or ``Area'') has attained the
1997 annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The Chattanooga Area is comprised of Hamilton County
in Tennessee, Catoosa and Walker Counties in Georgia, and a portion of
Jackson County in Alabama. This determination of attainment is based
upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the
2007-2009 period showing that the Area has monitored attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to
submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available
control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan,
contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions related to attainment of the standard shall be

suspended so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on June 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0084. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey or Sara Waterson, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey may be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Waterson may be reached by phone at (404) 562-
9061 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of this action?
III. What is EPA's final action?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is determining that the Chattanooga Area (comprised Hamilton
County in Tennessee, Catoosa and Walker Counties in Georgia, and a
portion of Jackson County in Alabama) has attaining data for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality
assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data
that shows the Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2007-2009 data.
    Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale
for EPA's action are explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 15895). For summary purposes,
a monitor in Rossville did not meet data completeness requirements for
2007 due to monitor shut-down. Data substitution was used to determine
the attainment status of the Rossville site. The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GA EPD) developed a weight-of-evidence approach
for an alternative method of data substitution. EPA determined that GA
EPD successfully demonstrated a strong correlation between the
PM2.5 data from the Rossville site and two other sites in
the Area. The annual design value for 2007-2009 for the Chattanooga
Area is 12.7 [mu]g/m\3\, at the Siskin Drive site (47-065-4002). The
comment period closed on April 21, 2011. No comments were received in
response to the NPR.

II. What is the effect of this action?

    This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends
the requirements for this Area to submit attainment demonstrations,
associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as
long as this Area continues to meet the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Finalizing this action does not constitute a redesignation of
the Chattanooga Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Further,
finalizing this action does not involve approving maintenance plans for
the Area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it involve
a determination that the Area has met all requirements for a
redesignation.

III. What is EPA's final action?

    EPA is determining that the Chattanooga Area has attaining data for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination is based
upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing that this Area has monitored attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS during the period 2007-2009. This
final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), will suspend the
requirements for this Area to submit attainment demonstrations,
associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as
long as the Area continues to meet the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is taking this final action because it is in accordance with
the CAA and EPA policy and guidance.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action makes a determination of attainment based on air
quality, and will result in the suspension of certain federal
requirements, and it will not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this 1997 PM2.5 clean NAAQS data determination for the
Chattanooga Area does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States.
EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: May 19, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.62 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.62  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (b) Determination of Attaining Data. EPA has determined, as of May
31, 2011, the Chattanooga, Tennessee, nonattainment area has attaining
data for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in
accordance with 40 CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this
area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

Subpart L--Georgia

0
3. Section 52.578 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.578  Control Strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (b) Determination of Attaining Data. EPA has determined, as of May
31, 2011, the Chattanooga, Tennessee, nonattainment area has attaining
data for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in
accordance with 40 CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this
area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
4. Section 52.2231 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2231  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (c) Determination of Attaining Data. EPA has determined, as of May
31, 2011, the Chattanooga, Tennessee, nonattainment area has attaining
data for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in
accordance with 40 CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this
area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2011-13269 Filed 5-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P