[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36502-36504]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0535; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; Los Angeles, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to correct a clerical error in the Los
Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, CA legal description to
remove the language establishing the airspace as part time. This action
is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You

must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-0535; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-
20, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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 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 regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class D legal description for Los Angeles
International Airport, Los Angeles, CA, in support of IFR operations at
the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking 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 (Docket No. FAA-
2019-0535; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-20) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address
and phone number).
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2019-0535; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-20.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or 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 through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/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 the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation
Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center,
Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th St, Des Moines, WA 98198-6547.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 71 by removing language from the legal description in FAA
Order 7400.11C, that establishes the Class D airspace for Los Angeles
International Airport, Los Angeles, CA as part time. NBAA informed the
FAA that the LAX Class D legal description, the related chart
supplement entry, and notes included on the VFR Sectional contained
information that did not clearly identify when the airspace was in
effect. The FAA concurs. The legal description contains language that
implied the Class D airspace was part-time, inconsistent with the
original intent of the airspace. The Chart Supplement does not include
information indicating when the airspace is effective and directs users
to the VFR Terminal Area Chart. The VFR Terminal Area Chart directs
users to the Chart Supplement or NOTAMS for information and NOTAMS are
not appropriate for this use. The original intent was to establish the
Class D airspace as full time. In 2009, as a result of a mid-air
collision in New York and in response to NTSB Recommendation A-09-86,
Congress requested the FAA evaluate low-level flight around heavy-use
airspace. The FAA committed to evaluations of flight operations in and
around Class Bravo Airspace in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and
Houston. The LAX VFR Airspace Taskforce was convened and made
recommendations to modify the airspace around LAX in a two-step
process. Step one was to establish full-time Class D airspace at LAX.
Step two was to incorporate the Class D airspace into the LAX Class B
at a later date. This proposal recommends removal of the language
indicating the airspace is part time and does not affect the lateral
boundaries of the airspace.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018 and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. 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.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AWP CA D Los Angeles, CA [Amended]

Los Angeles International Airport, CA
    (Lat. 33[deg]56'33'' N, long. 118[deg]24'26'' W)
Santa Monica Municipal Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]00'57'' N, long. 118[deg]27'05'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat. 33[deg]57'42'' N,
long. 118[deg]27'23'' W; to lat. 33[deg]58'18'' N, long.
118[deg]26'24'' W; then via the 2.7-mile radius of the Santa Monica
Municipal Airport counterclockwise to lat. 34[deg]00'00'' N, long.
118[deg]24'02'' W; to lat. 34[deg]00'00'' N, long. 118[deg]22'58''
W; to lat. 33[deg]57'42'' N, long. 118[deg]22'10'' W, thence to the
point of beginning. That airspace extending upward from the surface
to and including 2,500 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat.
33[deg]55'50'' N, long. 118[deg]22'06'' W; to lat. 33[deg]54'16'' N,
long. 118[deg]24'17'' W; to lat. 33[deg]52'47'' N, long.
118[deg]26'22'' W; to lat. 33[deg]55'51'' N, long. 118[deg]26'05''
W, thence to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 19, 2019.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-15936 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION

NOTICE OF FILING TEMPLATE FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE

FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: Susanne
Cerrelli at<PHONE_NUMBER>

EPA has received a pesticide petition [insert petition number] from
Certis USA LLC, 9145 Guilford Road, Suite 175, Columbia, MD 21046
proposing 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 to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of the microbial pesticide Bacillus mycoides isolate J in or on all
agricultural commodities.

Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Certis USA
LLC has submitted the following summary of information, data, and
arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was
prepared by Certis USA LLC and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of
the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the
terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material,
or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the
findings reflected EPA’s position and not the position of the
petitioner.

I. Certis USA LLC Petition Summary

Petition number 4F8252

A. Product name and Proposed Use Practices

The microbial pest control agent is Bacillus mycoides isolate J.
Bacillus mycoides isolate J is a naturally occurring, spore-forming
microorganism, one of six species that comprise the Bacillus cereus
group. It was isolated in a field of infected sugar beets. Bacillus
mycoides isolate J is a common, ubiquitous soil bacterium that is found
worldwide.  The mode of action of Bacillus mycoides isolate J is to
induce systemic resistance, triggering the plant’s defenses to control
or suppress plant diseases.

Application of live vegetative cells of Bacillus mycoides isolate J to
the leaves of growing crops induces systemic resistance in the plant
that is characterized by an oxidative burst and production of
pathogenesis related proteins including chitinase and peroxide and beta
glucanase, but does not cause plant death or tissue necrosis.

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues.

The microbial pest control agent Bacillus mycoides isolate J is a
naturally occurring soil organism which will induce systemic resistance
to certain plant diseases. Under proper environmental conditions,
Bacillus mycoides isolate J induces systemic resistance in a broad range
of plants and will be effective in controlling fungal and bacterial
diseases such as sugar beets, cucurbits, tomatoes, ornamentals,
solanaceous plants and other crops.

Bacillus mycoides isolate is a common and ubiquitous soil microorganism
that was first isolated by the Jacobson group from leaves of sugar beets
grown in Montana in 1994.  Bacillus mycoides isolate J forms very
distince spiral colonies on nutrient agar, and is one of six species
that comprise the B.cereus group. A number of DNA sequence matching
techniques have been used to distinguish BmJ from other B.cereus group
isolates; this species is genetically separate from other species in the
group.

The active ingredient can be cultured readily on various culture media
and is cultured by conventional submerged fermentation. Spores of the
fermentation are recovered from the fermentation broth and dried to
create the technical grade active ingredient.  A master stock is
isolated from a single colony isolate by plating on potato dextrose
agar. The culture has been deposited in the Agricultural Research
Service depository in Peoria, IL with the accession number NRRL
B-30890.]

Magnitude of residue at the time of harvest and method used to determine
the residue.

Bacillus mycoides isolate J is a naturally occurring soil microorganism
which has been isolated in agricultural soils worldwide and, as such,
long term exposure to humans, in crops is expected to occur.  No
toxicity or pathogenicity to humans has been reported in the literature
or from tests, resulting from exposure to Bacillus mycoides isolate J,
and this microorganism is not known to be toxic or pathogenic or toxic
to any environmental animal or plant species.  Therefore, when used
according to label directions, Bacillus mycoides isolate J would not
result in residues that are of toxicological concern.

The spores of Bacillus mycoides isolate J are affected by sunlight,
temperature, humidity, substrate, and chemicals.  However, it is the
systemic induction of resistance to certain fungal and bacterial
diseases by the plant that provides control, and not the infectivity of
germinating spores.  The half-life of the spores is relatively short,
and normal washing after harvest and before sale would further reduce or
remove any residues.

3. A statement of why an analytical method for detecting and measuring
the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed.

The acute toxicity studies discussed in Section C of this document are
sufficient to show that there are no foreseeable human or domestic
health hazards likely to arise from the use of the product as proposed.
This soil microorganism is present naturally and Certis USA is
requesting an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for any
residues remaining in/on all agricultural commodities.  Since
enforcement of residue levels would not be needed, an enforcement
analytical method is not required.

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

Acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity- rat –To evaluate the acute oral
toxicity, infectivity/pathogenicity of Bacillus mycoides isolate J
Technical Grade Active Ingredient, a single high dose of 6.3 x 109 CFU
per gram or 6.3 x 108 was administered by gavage to rats.  At necropsy,
no internal observable abnormalities were noted, no signs of
toxicological effects.  There was no mortality during the study and the
test material had cleared from brain, mesenteric lymph nodes, blood,
kidney, spleen, liver, lung and caecum

Acute intravenous toxicity/pathogenicity – rat – the test substance
was administered at a single high dose of 5.3x 108 CFU/gram totwo groups
or rats.  No signs of toxicity or pathogenicity were obse

rved under the condition of the test. No abnormalities were observed for
the duration of the study. The test material cleared completely from the
brain, blood, lungs, kidneys, and cecum.  A pattern of clearance was
established in the liver,

Acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity- rat –A single intratracheal
dose 1.1 x 108 CFU/ rat was administered to test animals.  No deaths
occurred and there were no signs of toxicity observed in any animal
under the conditions of this test.  Although total clearance of the
microorganism was not established, no clinical signs of toxicity or
infectivity were noted for the duration of the study.

Acute oral toxicity –rat- the test substance (BmJ WG) at 5000 mg/kg
was administered via gavage to female rats. No mortality occurred during
the study, and no clinical signs of toxicity were observed.  The acute
LD50 was determined to be greater than 5,000 mg/kg. Based on the test
results, EPA has classified the product at toxicity category IV.

Primary eye irritation – the test substance (BmJ WG) was instilled in
the eye of albino rabbits and examined at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after
treatment.  The test substance (produced irritation which was reversible
within 48 hours after treatment.  No irritation was observed in any eyes
at 72 hours. Based on the test results EPA has classified the product as
toxicity category III.

Dermal irritation – rabbit – in a four hour dermal exposure to the
skin of rabbits, the test substance (BmJ WG) was non-irritating with a
primary irritation index of zero.  Based on the test results, EPA has
classified the product as toxicity category IV.

Acute dermal toxicity - rats – the test substance (BmJ WG) was
administered as a single dose at 5050 mg/kg.  No mortality was observed
for the duration of the study, and there were not clinical signs of
toxicity at any time during the study. Based on the test results, the
LD50 for BmJ WG is greater than 5050 mg.kg.

D. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure.

food

Bacillus mycoides isolate J is a naturally occurring soil microorganism,
which has been isolated in soils worldwide and as such, humans, animals,
and plants are constantly exposed to this microorganism.  It is expected
that, when used as proposed, Bacillus mycoides isolate J would not
result in residues that are of toxicological concern. Bacillus mycoides
isolate is sensitive to environmental factors such as sunlight and
temperature. Bacillus mycoides isolate J spores lose their viability
when exposed to periods of sunlight and temperatures consistent with
mammalian body temperatures. After harvest any remaining spores on crop
leaves will be exposed to unfavorable conditions (e.g. dryness), and are
not likely to germinate; any potentially occurring residual deposits on
these crops will not harm humans because Bacillus mycoides isolate J
demonstrates no toxicity, infectivity, or pathogenicity in appropriate
tests.  Further the optimal temperature range for, germination between
27 and 35 degrees C while the normal body temperatures of humans, other
mammalian species and avian species is significantly higher than 35
degrees C and therefore unsuitable for germination of Bacillus mycoides
isolate J.

While the proposed use pattern may result in dietary exposure with
possible residues in or on certain agricultural commodities, negligible,
to no risk, is expected for the general population, including infants
and children, or animals because Bacillus mycoides isolate J
demonstrated no pathogenicity or toxicity at the maximum doses tested.

Since Bacillus mycoides isolate J is a microorganism that is ubiquitous
in soils, humans may be exposed dermally and orally to this common
fungus when they get soil on their hands or clothing, or handle pets
that have played in soil. Importantly, no toxicological endpoints were
identified for Bacillus mycoides isolate J, and there is no evidence of
adverse effects from oral, dermal, or pulmonary exposure to this MPCA.
It is not expected that the pesticidal use of Bacillus mycoides isolate
J will significantly increase the non-dietary and non-occupational
exposure to the fungus.

Based on the proposed use patterns, in which Bacillus mycoides isolate J
is applied directly to foliage of agricultural and ornamental crops, the
potential for non-dietary, non-occupational exposures to Bacillus
mycoides isolate J pesticide residues by the general population,
including infants and children, is low. Moreover, even in the unlikely
event of non-dietary, non-occupational exposures to Bacillus mycoides
isolate J residues, no harm is expected because no toxicity or
pathogenicity was found in mammalian studies that included high levels
of oral, pulmonary, and dermal exposure.

. Drinking water.

Bacillus mycoides isolate J is not known as an aquatic microorganism,
and therefore is no evidence in the literature that this microorganism
will germinate in aquatic habitats. There are no aquatic use sites
permitted for this pesticide, so exposure to drinking water is not
expected. Accordingly, the use of this MCPA on terrestrial plants is not
anticipated to lower the quality of drinking water. Even if low levels
of the microbe were present in drinking water, no risk to the general
public would be expected because Bacillus mycoides isolate J
demonstrated no pathogenicity or toxicity at the maximum dose tested.
The potential of significant transfer to drinking water is minimal to
nonexistent.

2. Non-dietary exposure.

Since Bacillus mycoides isolate J is a naturally occurring
microorganism, there may be non-dietary exposure, but not above
background levels of this naturally occurring microorganism.

E. Cumulative Exposure

There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S.
population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposures to
residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J as a result of its proposed
uses. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information. There appears to be
no potential for harm, from this microorganism in its use as a microbial
pesticide in agricultural commodities. Furthermore, the organism is
naturally occurring in soils, and is non-toxic and non-pathogenic to
animals and humans. This conclusion is based on the results of the
mammalian toxicity tests referenced in Section C. Moreover, potential
non-occupational inhalation or dermal exposure is not expected to pose
any adverse effects to exposed populations via aggregate and cumulative
exposure.

Therefore no cumulative effects from the residues of this product with
other related microbial pesticides are anticipated.

F. Determination of Safety for U.S. population, Infants and Children

There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S.
population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposures to
residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J as a result of its proposed
uses.  This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information.  As discussed
previously, there appears to be no potential for harm, from this
microorganism in its use as a systemic inducer of resistance by the
treated plant/crop Furthermore, the organism is naturally occurring in
the environment, and non-toxic and non-pathogenic to animals and humans.
 This conclusion is based on the results of the mammalian toxicity tests
discussed in Section C.  Moreover, potential non-occupational inhalation
or dermal exposure is not expected to pose any adverse effects to
exposed populations via aggregate and cumulative exposure.

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

There is no information to indicate that Bacillus mycoides isolate J
would have an effect in humans similar to an effect produced by a
naturally-occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects.  There is no
known metabolite produced by this microorganism that acts as an
endocrine disruptor.  The submitted toxicity/pathogenicity studies in
rodents indicate that following dosing no viable spores were found in
organs or tissues of test animals.  It is concluded that there will be
no incremental adverse effects to the endocrine system.

H. Existing Tolerances

Under 40 CFR 180.1269, there is only a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance

for Bacillus mycoides isolate J when used as a fungicide on potatoes in
accordance with a valid Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) section 18 emergency exemption established. This temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance expires and is revoked on
December 31, 2015.

There is no tolerance or other exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance established for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J.

I. International Tolerances

The European Food Safety Authority Scientific Report (2007), 115, 1-161,
determined that under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on Maximum

Residue Levels for pesticides (28 October 2007) that no MRLs and no
residue definitions have

to be established for the use of Bacillus mycoides isolate J on
agricultural crops.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 81 (Friday, April 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 19710]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-141-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on April 11, 2017, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed
a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.216(b)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Texas Gas' blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP82-407-000. Texas Gas requests authorization to
abandon certain natural gas pipeline assets, ancillary auxiliary
facilities and appurtenances, located in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana
and Louisiana State waters. Specifically, Texas Gas proposes to: (1)
Abandon in place 3.61 miles of 8-inch-diameter pipeline known as the
Bay Junop to Bay Round 8-inch pipeline; (3) abandon in place
approximately 10.05 miles and abandon by removal approximately 0.24
miles of 8-inch-diameter pipeline, known as the Bay Round to Block 8 8-
inch pipeline; and (3) abandon by removal the Bay Round Platform and
the Brammer Old Camp Pass Platform, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may
also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates and Tariffs, Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC, 610 West 2nd Street, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 or
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    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.
    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 commenter 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.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: April 21, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08567 Filed 4-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31916-31920]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-12-004]

Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency Through Improved
Software; Supplemental Agenda Notice

    Take notice that Commission staff will convene a technical
conference on June 24, 25, and 26, 2013 to discuss opportunities for
increasing real-time and day-ahead market efficiency through improved
software. A detailed agenda with the list of times for the selected
speakers and presentation abstracts will be published on the
Commission's Web site \1\ after May 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/market-planning/2013-conference.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This conference will bring together diverse experts from public
utilities, the software industry, government, research centers and
academia and is intended to build on the discussions initiated in the
previous Commission staff technical conferences on increasing market
and planning efficiency through improved software.
    The agenda for this conference is attached. If any changes occur,
the revised agenda will be posted on the calendar page for this event
on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) prior to the event.

    Dated: May 20, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28MY13.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28MY13.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28MY13.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28MY13.013

[FR Doc. 2013-12509 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register: July 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 127)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36363-36367]
[DOCID:fr03jy07-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0510; FRL-8334-4]
RIN 2060-AO46

Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Primary Copper Smelting and Secondary Copper Smelting
Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to amend the national
emission standards for primary copper smelting area sources and
secondary copper smelting area sources published on January 23, 2007.
The amendments to the national emission standards for primary copper
smelting area sources clarify when plants must exhaust gases to a
control device and what control devices may be used for this
requirement; numbering errors are also corrected. The amendments to the
national emission standards for secondary copper smelting area sources
clarify the date which defines a new copper smelter and correct a
cross-referencing error.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on October 1, 2007 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 2, 2007.
If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in
the Federal Register. If we receive adverse comment, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
some or all of the amendments in this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0510 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Four Area Source Categories Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. 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-HQ-OAR-
2006-0510. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes 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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://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 docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Four Area Source
Categories Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Where can I get a copy of this document?
IV. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
V. What are the changes to the NESHAP for primary copper smelting
and secondary copper smelting area source?
    A. NEHSAP for Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources
    B. NESHAP for Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing the rule without a prior proposed rule because we
view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. The amendments to the national emission standards for primary
copper smelting area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEEE) and
secondary copper smelting area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFFF)
consist of technical and editorial corrections that do not make
material changes to the rule requirements. However, in the ``Proposed
Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposed rule to make these amendments
if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on the rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the
final rule include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category               NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  331411...........  Primary copper
                                                    smelting area source
                                                    facilities that
                                                    produce copper from
                                                    copper sulfide ore
                                                    concentrates using
                                                    pyrometallurgical
                                                    techniques.
                                331423...........  Area source
                                                    facilities that
                                                    process copper scrap
                                                    in a blast furnace
                                                    and converter or use
                                                    another
                                                    pyrometallurgical
                                                    purification process
                                                    to produce anode
                                                    copper from copper
                                                    scrap, including low-
                                                    grade copper scrap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11146 of
subpart EEEEEE (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources) or 40 CFR
63.11153 of subpart FFFFFF (NESHAP for Secondary Copper Smelting Area
Sources). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority
for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR
63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

III. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

IV. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified

as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0510.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.

V. What are the changes to the NESHAP for primary copper smelting and
secondary copper smelting area source?

A. NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources

    On January 23, 2007 (72 FR 2944), we issued the NESHAP for Primary
Copper Smelting Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEEE). The
final rule establishes air emission control requirements for new and
existing primary copper smelters that use continuous or batch smelting
technologies.
    The final rule makes two technical clarifications to this NESHAP in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 40 CFR 63.11148 (What are the standards and
compliance requirements for existing sources using batch copper
converters?). The existing provision states that ``during periods when
no copper ore concentrate feed is charged to or molten material tapped
from the smelting vessel but the smelting vessel remains in operation
to temporarily hold molten material in the vessel before resuming
copper production, you must exhaust the process off gas from the
smelting vessel to an electrostatic precipitator or baghouse prior to
discharge to the atmosphere.'' As stated, this provision contains
conflicting language because molten materials cannot be tapped from and
held in a smelting vessel at the same time. Accordingly, we are
removing the phrase ``or molten materials tapped from'' to clarify that
the operating conditions when the owner or operator must exhaust the
process off gas from a smelting vessel to an appropriate particulate
matter (PM) control device is when no copper ore concentrate feed is
charged to the smelting vessel but the smelting vessel remains in
operation to temporarily hold molten material in the vessel before
resuming copper production.
    In addition, we are adding to this same provision in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of 40 CFR 63.11148 ``wet scrubber'' as one of the types of
PM control devices listed. Wet scrubbers are PM control devices that
are used at some primary copper smelters for controlling PM emissions
from smelting vessels during temporary holding operations. As we
mentioned in the preamble to this NESHAP (72 FR 2932, 2938), we
developed the standards for existing primary copper area source
smelters

that use batch technology based on operations at batch converting
facilities that we had determined to be effectively controlling their
hazardous air pollutant emissions. One of these facilities uses a wet
scrubber to control PM emissions from smelting vessels during the
temporary holding operations described above. Having established the
generally available control technology based on the use of a wet
scrubber, we clearly did not intend to then exclude wet scrubbers from
the types of PM control devices that affected owners and operators can
use to comply with the rule requirement, nor would we have a basis for
such exclusion. Accordingly, we are correcting 40 CFR
63.11148(a)(2)(ii) to include wet scrubbers as one of the types of
control devices that can be used to meet the requirement in that
provision.
    We are also correcting numbering errors in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR
63.11150 (What general provisions apply to this subpart?). Currently
paragraph (c) contains two paragraphs numbered as (c)(3), and the
introductory text to paragraph (c) makes a reference to four instead of
five paragraphs. Accordingly, in the paragraph (c) introductory text,
the reference to paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) is corrected to (c)(1)
through (5), and the numbering for paragraphs (c)(3), (4), (5) is
corrected.

B. NESHAP for Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources

    On January 23, 2007 (72 FR 2952), we issued the NESHAP for
Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFFFF). The final rule corrects the date in Sec.  63.11153(b), which
defines a new affected source under this NESHAP. Both section 112(a)(4)
of the Clean Air Act and the part 63 General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.2
define a ``new'' affected source as one for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or after the date EPA first proposes a
relevant emission standard under section 112. In Sec.  63.11153(b), we
inadvertently defined a new source as being constructed or
reconstructed before the date of proposal of this NESHAP (October 6,
2006). Therefore, we are amending Sec.  63.11153(b) to correctly state
that a new affected source is one that is constructed or reconstructed
on or after October 6, 2006. We are also correcting a cross reference
in 40 CFR 63.11157(b)(5). Paragraph (b)(5) of this section is corrected
to refer to the work practice standard in Sec.  63.11155(g) instead of
Sec.  63.11157(g), which is not only an incorrect reference but is also
nonexistent.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA is taking this action to make certain technical and editorial
corrections in the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting
area sources. These corrections do not include any information
collection requirement.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the area source NESHAP
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 1,000 employees for primary
copper smelting and less than 750 employees for secondary copper
smelting); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
determined that small businesses in these area source categories will
not incur any adverse impacts because EPA is taking this action to make
certain technical and editorial corrections in the NESHAP for primary
and secondary copper smelting area sources, and these corrections do
not create any new requirements or burdens. No costs are associated
with these amendments to the two NESHAP.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this action does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. EPA is taking this action to make certain
technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP for primary and
secondary copper smelting area sources. No costs are associated with
these corrections. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined
that this action contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The technical and
editorial corrections made through this action contain no requirements
that apply to such governments, impose no obligations upon them, and
will not result in any expenditures by them or any disproportionate
impacts on them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to section
203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.''
    The final rule does not have federalism implications. The final
rule makes certain technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP
for primary and secondary smelting area sources. These final
corrections do not impose requirements on State and local governments.
They have no 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to the final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' The final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final rule
makes certain technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP for
primary and secondary copper smelting area sources. These final
corrections do not impose requirements on tribal governments. They also
have no direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to the final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it makes technical and editorial
corrections to NESHAP that are based on technology performance and not
on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that the final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The technical and editorial corrections in the final rule
do not change the level of control required by the NESHAP.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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 Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these final
rule amendments 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 final rule amendments 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). This final rule will be effective
on October 1, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 27, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart EEEEEE--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.11148 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.11148  What are the standards and compliance requirements for
existing sources using batch copper converters?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) During periods when no copper ore concentrate feed is charged
to the smelting vessel but the smelting vessel remains in operation to
temporarily hold molten material in the vessel before resuming copper
production, you must exhaust the process off gas from the smelting
vessel to an electrostatic precipitator, wet scrubber, or baghouse
prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.11150 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
b. By redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(5).
0
c. By redesignating the second paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(4).

Sec.  63.11150  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) If you own or operate an existing affected source subject to
Sec.  63.11148, your notification of compliance status required by
Sec.  63.9(h) must include the information specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *

Subpart FFFFFF--[Amended]

0
4. Section 63.11153 is amended by revising the last sentence in
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.11153  Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Your secondary copper smelter is a new affected source if
you commenced constructed or reconstruction of the affected source on
or after October 6, 2006.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.11157 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.11157  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the work practice standard in Sec.  63.11155(g): ``This
facility has an approved monitoring plan in accordance with Sec.
63.11155(g).''

[FR Doc. E7-12847 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 8, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-97-2676

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Aviateca, S.A. 						Date Filed: April 21, 2005

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to (1) engage
in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
from points behind Guatemala via Guatemala and intermediate points to a
point or points in the United States and beyond; (2) engage in scheduled
foreign air transportation of property and mail between the United
States and any point or points; and (3) conduct charter foreign air
transportation pursuant to the Air Transport Agreement between the
United States and Guatemala, and other charters subject to Part 212 of
our rules.

If renewal, date and citation of last action: May 29, 2003, in this
docket

Applicant representatives:  Charles F. Donley II & Elizabeth C. Collins
(202) 626-6840

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  June 8, 2005

Effective dates of exemption authority granted:  June 8, 2005 – June
8, 2007

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  U.S.-Guatemala
Air Transport Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

   X   Standard exemption conditions (attached)           X     Foreign
air carrier permit   (Order  90-8-58)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  The authority
granted above is subject to the conditions set forth in the Notice of
Action Taken, dated November 4, 1997, in this docket, including
limitations on expanded operations by Aviateca using its own aircraft
and crews.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21083-21084]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9046]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64276; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Amendments to NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC's Limited
Liability Company Agreement, By-Laws, Rules, Advices and Regulations

April 8, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On February 16, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's Limited Liability Company
Agreement, By-Laws, Rules, Advices and Regulations to alter its
governance process and to make other non-substantive conforming
changes. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 4, 2011.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63981 (February 25,
2011), 76 FR 12180 (March 4, 2011) (``Notice'').

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

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is April 18, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is hereby extending the 45-day period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change. In particular, the extension of time will
ensure that the Commission has sufficient time to consider and take
action on the Exchange's proposal.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act \5\
and for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates June 2,
2011, as the date by which the Commission should either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change File No. SR-Phlx-2011-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9046 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P