[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71008-71011]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2246-058]

Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Dispute Resolution Process
Schedule; Panel Meeting, and Technical Conference

    On October 20, 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), filed a
Notice to initiate a formal study dispute resolution process, pursuant
to 18 CFR 5.14, in the relicensing proceeding for the Yuba County Water
Agency's (YCWA) Yuba River Hydroelectric Project No. 2246. NMFS
disputes the treatment of several of its study requests, filed on March
7, 2011, in the Commission's study plan determination, issued on
September 30, 2011. NMFS specifically identifies study requests one
through six and study request eight as the disputed components of its,
March 7, 2011 filing. In its study requests one through six NMFS
requested studies of the effects of project and related activities on:
(1) Fish passage for anadromous fish; (2) hydrology for anadromous
fish; (3) water temperatures for anadromous fish migration, holding,
spawning, and rearing needs; (4) coarse substrate for anadromous fish:
sediment supply, transport, and storage; (5) large wood and riparian
habitat for anadromous fish; and (6) loss of marine-derived nutrients
in the Yuba River, respectively. In study request eight, NMFS requested
a study of, ``anadromous fish ecosystem effects analysis: synthesis of
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project and related
facilities on anadromous fish.''
    In its October 20, 2011 filing, NMFS designated David K. White as
its dispute resolution panel member. On October 25, 2011, Commission
staff designated Stephen P. Bowler to serve in the Commission staff
role of dispute resolution panel chair. From an established list of
potential third party panelists, Mr. Bowler and Mr. White selected Mr.
Richard E. Craven and requested that he serve on the panel. Mr. Craven
agreed to serve and the panel convened on November 7, 2011. Mr.
Craven's statement certifying that he has no conflict of interest,
which also summarizes his qualifications, is attached. None of the
three panelists have been involved previously in the Yuba River
Hydroelectric Project relicensing proceeding.
    The panel will hold an all-day technical conference on the disputed
studies on November 30, 2011. The conference will be held in
Sacramento, CA. Further details will be supplied in a future notice.
The purpose of the technical conference is for the disputing agency,
the applicant, and the Commission to provide the panel with additional
information necessary to evaluate the disputed studies. All local,
state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested
parties are invited to attend the meeting as observers. The panel may
also request information or clarification on written submissions as
necessary to understand the matters in dispute. The panel will limit
all input that it receives to the specific studies or information in
dispute and will focus on the applicability of such studies or
information to the study criteria stipulated in 18 CFR 5.9(b). If the
number of participants wishing to speak creates time constraints, the
panel may, at its discretion, limit the speaking time for each
participant.
    The process plan for dispute resolution is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Responsible party               Pre-filing milestone                Date             FERC regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS..............................  Disputes filed................  10/20/2011...........  5.14(a).
Dispute Panel.....................  Third Dispute Panel Member      11/4/2011............  5.14(d)(3).
                                     Selected.
Dispute Panel.....................  Dispute Resolution Panel        11/7/2011............  5.14(d).
                                     Convened.
YCWA..............................  Applicant Comments on Study     11/14/2011...........  5.14(i).
                                     Disputes Due.
FERC..............................  Notice of Dispute Resolution    11/9/2011 (with        Guidance.
                                     Panel Technical Conference.     details on or before
                                                                     11/16/2011).
Dispute Panel.....................  Dispute Resolution Panel        11/30/2011...........  5.14(j).
                                     Technical Conference.
Dispute Panel.....................  Dispute Resolution Panel        12/9/2011............  5.14(k).
                                     Findings Issued.
FERC..............................  Director's Study Dispute        12/29/2011...........  5.14(l).
                                     Determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information, please contact Stephen Bowler, the dispute
panel chair, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO11.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO11.065

[FR Doc. 2011-29549 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1091-1093]
[FR Doc No: X10-730108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61273; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-134]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC
Deleting NYSE Rule 445 and Adopting New Rule 3310 To Correspond With
Rule Changes Filed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

December 31, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 31, 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE Rule 445 and adopt new Rule
3310 to correspond with rule changes filed by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and approved by the
Commission.\4\ The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60645 (September 10,
2009), 74 FR 47630 (September 16, 2009) (order approving SR-FINRA-
2009-039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to delete NYSE Rule 445
(Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program) and adopt new Rule 3310
(Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program) to correspond with rule
changes filed by FINRA and approved by the Commission.

Background

    On July 30, 2007, FINRA's predecessor, the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), and NYSE Regulation, Inc.
(``NYSER'') consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a
combined organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act,
NYSE, NYSER and FINRA entered into an agreement (the ``Agreement'') to
reduce regulatory duplication for their members by allocating to FINRA
certain regulatory responsibilities for certain NYSE rules and rule
interpretations (``FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules''). NYSE Amex LLC
(``NYSE Amex'') became a party to the Agreement effective December 15,
2008.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (order approving the Agreement);
56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-
054) (order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE Rules as
``Common Rules'') and 60409 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39353 (August 6,
2009) (order approving the amended and restated Agreement, adding
NYSE Amex LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement sets
forth procedures regarding proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE or NYSE
Amex to the substance of any of the Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve
firms that are members of FINRA, NYSE and NYSE Amex of conflicting or
unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA is now engaged in the process of
reviewing and amending the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in
order to create a consolidated FINRA rulebook.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FINRA's rulebook currently has three sets of rules: (1) NASD
Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA
Rules. The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''), while
the consolidated FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members. For more
information about the FINRA rulebook consolidation process, see
FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Conforming Amendments to NYSE Rules

    FINRA adopted, subject to certain amendments, NASD Rule 3011 (Anti-
Money Laundering Compliance Program) and related Interpretive Material
NASD IM-3011-1 and 3011-2 as consolidated FINRA Rule 3310 (Anti-Money
Laundering Compliance Program), and deleted FINRA Incorporated NYSE
Rule 445 (Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program) as duplicative of
the new Rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60645 (September 10,
2009), 74 FR 47630 (September 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because it is substantially similar to the provisions of FINRA Rule
3310, FINRA deleted FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 445. In particular,
FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 445(1)-(5) are substantially the same as
consolidated FINRA Rule 3310(a)-(e). In addition, Supplementary
Material .10 and .20 to FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 445 are
substantially the same as Supplementary Material .01 to consolidated
FINRA Rule 3310. Finally, read together, part (4) and Supplementary
Material .30 to FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 445 are substantially the
same as Supplementary Material .02 to consolidated FINRA Rule 3310 with
respect to the notification of AML compliance person designations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To harmonize the NYSE Rules with the approved consolidated FINRA
Rules, the Exchange correspondingly proposes to delete NYSE Rule 445
and replace it with proposed NYSE Rule 3310, which is substantially
similar to the new FINRA Rule.\9\ As proposed,

NYSE Rule 3310 adopts the same language as FINRA Rule 3310, except for
substituting for or adding to, as needed, the term ``member
organization'' for the term ``member,'' and making corresponding
technical changes that reflect the difference between NYSE's and
FINRA's membership structures. In addition, in Supplementary Material
.02 to proposed Rule 3310, the Exchange added a cross-reference to NYSE
Rule 416A to ensure that those Exchange members and member
organizations that are not FINRA members are required to update the
contact information for anti-money laundering compliance personnel in
accordance with NYSE Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NYSE Amex has submitted a companion rule filing amending its
rules in accordance with FINRA's rule changes. See SR-NYSE-Amex-
2009-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in order to ensure that both proposed NYSE Rule 3310 and
FINRA Rule 3310 are fully harmonized, the Exchange also proposes to add
Supplementary Material .03 to NYSE Rule 3310 to provide that, for the
purposes of the rule, the term ``associated person of the member or
member organization'' shall have the same meaning as the terms ``person
associated with a member'' or ``associated person of a member'' as
defined in Article I (rr) of the FINRA By-Laws.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between NYSE
Rules and FINRA Rules (including Common Rules) of similar purpose,
resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance
for Dual Members. To the extent the Exchange's proposal differs from
FINRA's version of the Rules, such differences are technical in nature
and do not change the substance of the proposed NYSE Rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) becomes operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that
the proposed rule change is substantially identical to a rule change
proposed by FINRA and approved by the Commission after an opportunity
for public comment, and does not raise any new substantive issues.\16\
For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it will promote greater harmonization between
NYSE Rules and FINRA Rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for joint members
and greater harmonization between NYSE Rules and FINRA Rules.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change effective
and operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \16\ See supra note 7.
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2009-134 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-134. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-134 and should be submitted on
or before January 29, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-80 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 70

	[FDMS Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0933; FRL-     ]

State Operating Permit Programs; Delaware;

Amendments to the Definition of a “major source”

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking direct final action to amend the State of
Delaware’s operating permit program to correct the definition of
“major source.”  Delaware’s revision was submitted in response to
the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 that required States to
submit to EPA program revisions in accordance with the Federal Title V
regulations.  The EPA granted final approval of Delaware’s operating
permit program on November 19, 2001.  Delaware amended its operating
permit program to address the Federal EPA amendment to the Federal Title
V regulation, which went into effect on November 27, 2001, and this
action approves this amendment.  Any parties interested in commenting on
this action granting approval of Delaware’s amendment to the Title V
operating permit program should do so at this time.

DATES:  This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register]  without further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse written comment by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register].  If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0933 by one of the following methods:

A.   www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.

B.    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C.    Mail:   EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0933, David Campbell, Chief, Permits and
Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.

 D.   Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0933.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you

submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the
use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Nino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On May 18, 2004, the State of Delaware
submitted an amendment to its State operating permit program.  This
amendments is the subject of this document and this section provides
additional information on the amendment by addressing the following
questions:

What is the State operating permit program?

What are the State operating permit program requirements?

What is being addressed in this document?

What is not being addressed in this document?

What changes to Delaware’s operating permit program is EPA  approving?

What action is being taken by EPA?

What is the State Operating Permit Program?

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required all States to develop
operating permit programs that meet certain Federal criteria.  When
implementing the operating permit programs, the States require certain
sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all of their
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The focus of the
operating permit program is to improve enforcement by issuing each
source a permit that consolidates all of its applicable CAA requirements
into a Federally-enforceable document.  By consolidating all of the
applicable requirements for a given air pollution source into an
operating permit, the source, the public, and the State environmental
agency can more easily understand what CAA requirements apply and how
compliance with those requirements is determined.

Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program
include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources
specified in the CAA or in EPA’s implementing regulations.  For
example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless
of size, must obtain operating permits.  Examples of “major” sources
include those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more
of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, or particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); those that emit
10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
specifically listed under the CAA; or those that emit 25 tons per year
or more of a combination of HAPs.  In areas that are not meeting the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon
monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are defined by the
gravity of the nonattainment classification.

What are the State Operating Permit Program Requirements?

The minimum program elements for an approvable operating permit program
are those mandated by Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
and established by EPA’s implementing regulations at title 40, part 70
- “State Operating Permit Programs” in the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR part 70).  Title V required state and local air
pollution control agencies to develop operating permit programs and
submit them to EPA for approval by November 15, 1993.  Under Title V,
State and local air pollution control agencies that implement operating
permit programs are called “permitting authorities”.

 The State was granted final full approval effective on November 19,
2001. On May 18, 2004, Delaware submitted an amendment to its currently
EPA-approved Title V operating permit program.  In general, Delaware
amended its operating permit program regulations to make the current
definition of a “major source” as stringent as the corresponding
provision of 40 CFR Part 70, which went into effect on November 27,
2001.  This change will make this aspect of Regulation No. 30 consistent
with the Federal rule.

What is Being Addressed in This Document?

This action approves an amendment to the Delaware Title V operating
permit program to correct the definition of a “major source.”  This
amendment would change the definition of “a major source” by
removing the phrase “but only with respect to those air pollutants
that have been regulated for that category” from the Regulation 30
(Title V) definition of a major source as it applies to Federal
standards.

What is Not Being Addressed in This Document?

EPA is not opening the entirety of Delaware’s Title V operating permit
program up to public comment, we are only addressing this change to the
definition of “major source”.

What Changes to Delaware’s Program is EPA Approving?

Delaware has revised Regulation 30, Section 2 - Definitions, of the
State of Delaware Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution to
be consistent with the provision of 40 CFR 70.2. This action is
necessary because the current definition is less stringent than the
corresponding provision of 40 CFR part 70, which went into effect on
November 27, 2001.

Change to Delaware’s Program that Corrects a Deficiency

The EPA has reviewed Delaware’s May 18, 2004 program amendment in
conjunction with the portion of Delaware’s program that was earlier
approved.  Based on this review, EPA is granting full approval of
Delaware’s amended operating permit program.  The EPA has determined
that this amendment to Delaware’s operating permit program adequately
addresses the deficiency.  Delaware’s operating permit program,
including this amendment submitted on May 18, 2004,

fully meets the minimum requirements of 40 CFR part 70.

What Action is Being Taken by EPA?

The State of Delaware has satisfactorily addressed a program deficiency
when EPA made a change to the Federal rule.  The operating permit
program amendment that is the subject of this document considered
together with that portion of Delaware’s operating permit program that
was earlier approved fully satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70
and the Clean Air Act.  Therefore, EPA is taking direct final action to
fully approve the Delaware Title V operating permit program in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.2 definition of “a major source.”

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments.  However, in the “Proposed Rule” section of
today’s Federal Register EPA is publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve this amendment to Delaware’s
operating permit program if adverse comments are filed relevant to the
issues discussed in this action.  This rule will be effective on [Insert
date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register].  If EPA
receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.  The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule.  The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action.  Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.  Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph or section of this rule and if that
provision may be servered from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not subject of an adverse
comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use"

 (66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)).   This action merely approves
State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law.  Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).  This rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor  will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely
approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act.  This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.

In reviewing State operating permit program submissions, EPA’s role is
to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act.  In this context, in the absence of a prior existing
requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove an operating permit program for
failure to use VCS.  It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law
for EPA, when it reviews an operating permit program submission, to use
VCS in place of an operating permit program submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct.  The EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General’s
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.  This rule
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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 rule 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.  This rule is not a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 fully approving Delaware’s Title V
operating permit program may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

This action approves an amendment to the Delaware Title V operating
permit program to correct the definition of a “major source.”

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection,

Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

_/s/__________________________

Dated:   11/21/06                        			William T. Wisniewski
                         								Acting, Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR Part 70 is amended as follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

2.  Appendix A to part 70 is amended by revising paragraph (c) in the
entry for Delaware to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Delaware

	(C)  The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control submitted program amendment on May 18, 2004.  This rule
amendment contained in the

May 18, 2004 submittal is necessary to make the current definition as
stringent as the corresponding provision of 40 CFR 70, which went into
effect on November 27, 2001.  The State is hereby granted approval
effective on  [Insert date 45 days after publication in the Federal
Register].

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   3

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   11


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41425-41426]
[DOCID:fr17au09-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

August 10, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-872-000.
    Applicants: Arlington Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Arlington Storage Co, LLC submits Sheet No. 0 et al.
to FERC Gas Tariff Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 08/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-873-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System submits Twenty Third
Revised Sheet 4A to its FER, L.P. Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 to
be effective 10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-874-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC submits First
Revised Sheet No. 14R et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume
No. 1.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-875-000.
    Applicants: Horizon Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Horizon Pipeline Company, LLC submits Sixth Revised
Sheet No. 5 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-876-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Trailblazer Pipeline Company, LLC submits Second
Revised Sheet 5 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1 to
be effective 10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-877-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
Second Revised Sheet No. 32, to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume
No. 1.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-878-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC submits First
Revised Sheet No. 5 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19597 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM
To:	Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664
From:	David Putney, US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD
         Chris Sarsony, US EPA/OAQPS/HEID
Date:	August 22, 2019
Subject:	EPA's Analysis of Elongated Mineral Particulate
______________________________________________________________________________

 BACKGROUND
The EPA promulgated the original Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR) in October of 2003. In 2004, the National Wildlife Federation filed a petition for review of that regulation with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case No. 03-1458). In their petition, the National Wildlife Federation alleged that the EPA had failed to set standards for what they believed were emissions of asbestos, or asbestos-like fibers, from taconite iron ore processing plants. The compounds in question result from the crushing and processing of the taconite iron ore, which produces short, blocky particulate emissions. Those emissions are referred to as non-asbestiform amphibole elongated mineral particulate (EMP) within this document. The EPA subsequently requested a partial voluntary remand to further investigate the EMP emissions and consider possible options to address the issue, as appropriate. This request was granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
This memorandum summarizes our analysis of the available information and provides the rationale for our conclusion that the EMP emissions from taconite iron ore processing plants are neither asbestos, nor any other hazardous air pollutant (HAP) listed in section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
 CLEAN AIR ACT LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Section 112(b)(1) of the CAA contains the list of regulated HAP. Only two of the HAP in that list were considered possible candidates to include the subject EMP emissions  -  specifically, "asbestos" and "fine mineral fibers."
 Asbestos
 History of Taconite Fiber Emissions
The basis for the belief that asbestos, or asbestos-like fibers, may be emitted from taconite iron ore processing facilities was the case brought against the Reserve Mining Company (now the Northshore Mining Company) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (litigated from 1973 through 1982). It was alleged that the emissions from the associated taconite iron ore processing facility contained an amphibole mineral called cummingtonite-grunerite, which is chemically indistinguishable from a certain type of asbestos called amosite. There is only one taconite iron ore processing facility that utilizes ore known to contain amphibole minerals, i.e., the Northshore facility. This is because the Northshore facility is the only facility that obtains iron ore from the eastern end of the Mesabi Range, which was metamorphosed by the Duluth Gabbro Complex (the intrusive rock formation which comprises much of the basement bedrock in northeastern Minnesota), resulting in the presence of amphibole minerals. However, the presence of amphibole minerals alone is not sufficient to determine that asbestos is present, as amphiboles develop in either the asbestiform or non-asbestiform geologic forms and the non-asbestiform form of amphibole minerals are not considered asbestos, as explained below.
 Clean Air Act HAP Definition of Asbestos
CAA section 112(b)(1) lists "Asbestos  -  CAS Number 1332214" as a HAP. However, the CAA does not provide a definition of the term "asbestos." Therefore, we have referred to how asbestos has been defined in other EPA CAA regulations to inform the definition of asbestos in the context of the CAA HAP list, as follows:
          Subpart M "National Emission Standards for Asbestos" (§61.141 of 40 CFR part 61)
         "Asbestos means the asbestiform varieties of serpentine (chrysotile), riebeckite (crocidolite), cummingtonite-grunerite, anthophyllite, and actinolite-tremolite." (emphasis added)
          Subpart E "Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools" (§763.83 of 40 CFR part 763) "Asbestos means the asbestiform varieties of: chrysotile (serpentine); crocidolite (riebeckite); amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite); anthophyllite; tremolite; and actinolite." (emphasis added)
          Subpart I "Prohibition of the Manufacture, Importation, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce of Certain Asbestos-Containing Products; Labeling Requirements" (§763.163 of 40 CFR part 763)
         "Asbestos means the asbestiform varieties of: chrysotile (serpentine); crocidolite (riebeckite); amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite); tremolite; anthophyllite; and actinolite." (emphasis added)
Note that all definitions previously used in CAA actions define asbestos to include only the asbestiform varieties of certain minerals. Definitions of "asbestiform" are provided by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the EPA, as follows:
          "Asbestiform: A habit of crystal aggregates displaying the characteristics of asbestos: groups of separable, long, thin, strong, and flexible fibers often arranged in parallel in a column or in matted masses (Veblen and Wylie 1993; Zoltai 1979, 1981)." "Mineralogists call asbestiform amphibole minerals by their mineral name followed by "asbestos" (Leake 1978). Thus, asbestiform tremolite is called tremolite asbestos." Found in Appendix F of the ASTDR document Toxicological Profile for Asbestos, dated September 2001.
          "Asbestiform (morphology) - Said of a mineral that is like asbestos, i.e., crystallized with the habit of asbestos. Some asbestiform minerals may lack the properties which make asbestos commercially valuable, such as long fiber length and high tensile strength. With the light microscope, the asbestiform habit is generally recognized by the following characteristics:
             Mean aspect ratios ranging from 20:1 to 100:1 or higher for fibers longer than 5 ug. Aspect ratios should be determined for fibers, not bundles;
             Very thin fibrils, usually less than 0.5 micrometers in width; and
             Two or more of the following:
                Parallel fibers occurring in bundles,
                Fiber bundles displaying splayed ends,
                Matted masses of individual fibers, and
                Fibers showing curvature.
         These characteristics refer to the population of fibers as observed in a bulk sample. It is not unusual to observe occasional particles having aspect rations of 10:1 or less, but it is unlikely that the asbestos component(s) would be dominated by particles (individual fibers) having aspect ratios of < 20:1 for fibers longer than 5ug. If a sample contains a fibrous component of which most of the fibers have aspect ratios of < 20:1 and that do not display the additional asbestiform characteristics, by definition the component should not be considered asbestos." Found in Appendix A of the EPA document Test Method - Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials (EPA/600/R-93/116, dated July 1993).
 Characterization of Fiber Emissions from the Northshore Taconite Facility
Fiber emissions from Northshore's Peter Mitchell Mine were characterized in a study by Ross, et. al., The search for asbestos within the Peter Mitchell Taconite iron ore mine, near Babbitt, Minnesota. During this study Ross et. al. analyzed 53 samples from 30 sites within the mine where fibrous minerals were thought to potentially occur. Samples were analyzed using transmission electron microscopes and other state-of-the-art equipment. Their findings included:
          "The fibrous ferroactinolite is a low temperature alteration product of non-fibrous amphibole; it does not occur in the manner of true asbestos which crystallizes as a primary mineral from hydrothermal solutions into open veins within deformed rock. The ropy mats of ferrian sepiolite are composed of inter-woven sub-micrometer sepiolite fibers. Due to interweaving of the fibers within the mats, individual fibers will be released only with great difficulty."
          "The fibers collected during ambient air sampling at the taconite mill where the Northshore iron ore is processed and at the town of Silver Bay are not asbestos, but rather are non-asbestiform ferroactinolite and grunerite."
          "No asbestos of any type was found in the mine pit."
In another study by Wilson et. al., ambient air samples from monitors at the taconite mill and in a nearby town were analyzed. It was found that the fibers collected by the ambient air monitors were non-asbestiform ferroactinolite and grunerite, not asbestos. (Wilson et. al., 2008)
After reviewing and evaluating available information, we have determined that the EMP emissions from the Northshore taconite facility do not meet the definition of "asbestos" found in EPA regulations and technical documents. This conclusion is supported by:
          The fact that asbestos is always defined as the asbestiform varieties of certain minerals (see 40 CFR sections 61.141, 763.83, and 763.163), whereas the EMP in question developed in the non-asbestiform geologic form;
          A study by Ross et. al. which found no asbestos in the Peter Mitchell Mine after analyzing over 50 samples from sites within the mine where fibrous minerals were thought to potentially occur; and
          A study by Wilson et. al., wherein ambient air samples indicated that the fibers collected by ambient air monitors located near the Northshore taconite processing facility were non-asbestiform ferroactinolite and grunerite, not asbestos.
          Therefore, we conclude the appropriate term for these particles is "non-asbestiform amphibole EMP."
             Fine Mineral Fibers
We also evaluated whether these non-asbestiform amphibole EMP emitted by taconite iron ore processing facilities might meet the definition of "fine mineral fibers." The HAP "fine mineral fibers" is defined in footnote 3 of the HAP list in CAA section 112(b)(1) as follows: "[f]ine mineral fibers includes mineral fiber emissions from facilities manufacturing or processing glass, rock or slag fibers (or other mineral derived fibers) of average diameter 1 micrometer or less." The EPA Health Effects Notebook (available at https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-effects-notebook-hazardous-air-pollutants) further explains that the term "fine mineral fibers" was intended to apply to the synthetic vitreous fibers glasswool, rockwool, slagwool, glass filaments, and refractory ceramic fibers.
We conclude that the non-asbestiform amphibole EMP emitted by taconite facilities do not meet the HAP definition of "fine mineral fibers" found in CAA section 112(b)(1) because the taconite iron ore processing facilities are not manufacturing or processing glass, rock or slag fibers (or other mineral derived fibers) or synthetic vitreous fibers such as rockwool, glasswool, slagwool, glass filaments, and refractory ceramic fibers.
 CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY
          The EMP emissions resulting from Northshore Mining Company's taconite mining and processing do not meet the HAP definition of "asbestos" because they are not "asbestiform." This conclusion is supported by studies by Ross et. al. and Wilson et. al. Therefore, we conclude that these emissions should be characterized as non-asbestiform amphibole EMP, as opposed to asbestos.
          The EMP emissions resulting from taconite iron ore processing also do not meet the HAP definition of "fine mineral fibers" for purposes of CAA section 112 as that term refers to the manufacturing or processing of glass, rocks or slag fibers or the listed synthetic vitreous fibers.
          Nevertheless, we note that the EMP are a component of PM which are currently subject to a MACT level of control by the NESHAP as a surrogate for metal HAP and acid gases. We also note that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requires the Northshore Mining facility to monitor the EMP and ensure ambient levels of EMP near the facility are no higher than levels found in a non-affected location (i.e., St. Paul, Minnesota).

 REFERENCES (all available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664)
          Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) memorandum to the MPCA Advisory Committee Members, dated August 2, 2016, with the subject Proposal Regarding Airborne Mineral Fibers Emitted by Northshore Mining Company.
          The search for asbestos within the Peter Mitchell Taconite iron ore mine, near Babbitt, Minnesota (Malcolm Ross, Robert P. Nolan, and Gordon L. Nord). Elsevier, Inc., 2007.
          October 20, 2016 email from Eric Alma of the MPCA.
          American Iron and Steel Institute memorandum to the EPA, dated February 25, 2019, titled Information for EPA regarding Amphiboles on the Mesabi Iron Range.
          Wilson, R., McConnell, E.E., Nolan, R.P., Axten, C.W., Ross, M., 2008. Risk assessment due to environmental exposures to fibrous particulates associated with taconite ore. Reg. Tox. Pharm. 52, S232-S245.
          Toxicological Profile for Asbestos (September 2001). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
          Test Method  -  Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials (EPA/600/R-93/116, dated July 1993).
          January 30, 2019 email from Eric Alma of the MPCA.


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 44288-44289] [FR Doc No: 2011-18665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-380; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-12]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; New Market, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at New

Market, VA, to accommodate the additional airspace needed for the

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed for New Market

Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management

of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of

Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;

Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the

Docket Number FAA-2011-380; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-12, at the

beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received

comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support

Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.

Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and

suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned

regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited

on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and

energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.

FAA-2011-380; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-12) and be submitted in

triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for

address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Annotators wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments

on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped

postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket

No. FAA-2011-380; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-12.'' The postcard will be

date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for

comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.

The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the

comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact

with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the

docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and

comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently

published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's

web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any

comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets

Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An

informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at

the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation

Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia

30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future

NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to

request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application

procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to establish Class E airspace at New

Market, VA to provide controlled airspace required to support the new

standard instrument approach procedures for New Market Airport. Class E

airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be

established for the safety and management of IFR operations.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of

FAA order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,

2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E

airspace designation listed in this document would be published

subsequently in the Order.

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves

an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.

It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);

and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the

anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that

will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is

certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is

found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106

describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,

Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's

authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority

described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under

that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign

the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the

efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope

of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at New Market

Airport, New Market, VA.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,

24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal

Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and

Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010,

is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or

more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AEA VA E5 New Market, VA [New]

New Market Airport, VA

    (Lat. 38[deg]39'21'' N., long. 78[deg]42'29'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface

within a 14.8-mile radius of the New Market Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15, 2011 .

Mark D. Ward,

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic

Organization.

[FR Doc. 2011-18665 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26941]
[DOCID:fr09my06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-422-012]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 24, 2006, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1-A, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the
filing, to become effective April 1, 2006.
    EPNG states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the
official service list.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6957 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P