device that enables one to forgo a cumulative analysis if that analysis
would yield no benefit, but the absence of that level in EPA rules does
not justify a complete exemption from conducting an air quality analysis
for PM2.5.  Also, states are not precluded from developing and applying
their own SILs for PM2.5 in the interim and demonstrating that a
cumulative analysis would yield trivial gain.  The concept of a SIL is
grounded on the de minimis principles described by the court in Alabama
Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Comment:

	One state/local agency (0164) believes that additional guidance is
needed for implementation of PSD, including increment use and tracking,
netting, modeling, SILs, pre-construction monitoring, and other
procedural and administrative elements.  The commenter urged EPA to
develop this guidance quickly, and to provide a simple but protective
interim framework for use by EPA and by delegated states until such
final guidance is available.  The commenter suggested that this interim
framework should, at a minimum, ensure that any new or modified project
that exceeds the PSD thresholds use BACT.  The commenter also suggested
that we require offsets for projects approved before the other
protective elements of the full PSD program are in place to ensure that
there is no significant deterioration in air quality.  (The commenter
noted that there will be a transition period while EPA develops the
suggested guidance and states modify rules and develop implementation
plans and, as discussed above, supported Option 1 as a reasonable
starting point for that period.)  A second state/local agency (0079.1)
similarly indicated that delegated states will need PSD increments and
guidance for BACT review, netting analyses, and dispersion modeling to
properly implement the rule and assign resources.

Response:

	As noted above, we have proposed PM2.5 increments, SILs, and SMCs (72
FR 54112, September 21, 2007), which will address a number of the areas
mentioned by the commenters.  We believe that the proposed rule, when
final, along with this final PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule, will
establish the necessary elements for a complete PM2.5 PSD program.  In
addition, the existing PM10 surrogate policy and other guidance for the
PSD program will continue to apply.  We believe that the PSD transition
approach discussed above appropriately addresses the interim periods
that will occur.  As a result, we do not believe that additional
guidance is necessary at this time.

Comments on NA NSR Transition Issues

	Our prior guidance permitted states to implement a PM10 NA NSR program
as a surrogate to address the requirements of NA NSR for the PM2.5
NAAQS.  However, we proposed that upon promulgation of the final PM2.5
NSR Implementation Rule (for which this document was prepared), states
would no longer be permitted to implement a PM10 NA NSR program as a
surrogate for a PM2.5 program.  Instead, most states would need to
implement a transitional PM2.5 NA NSR program under 40 CFR part 51,
appendix S (as amended by the final rulemaking action) until we approve
changes to a state’s SIP-approved NA NSR program to reflect the
requirements of the rule.  (It is possible that some states would be
able to continue to implement their existing NA NSR programs if the
regulations are written generally enough to apply to PM2.5 and to the
newly designated PM2.5 nonattainment areas.)  We proposed to revise
appendix S to include provisions necessary to implement a transitional
major NSR program for PM2.5.  We also noted that if a state is unable to
apply the requirements of appendix S (e.g., lacks the legal authority),
EPA will act as the reviewing authority for the relevant portion of the
permit.  Comments received on our proposal are summarized in the
following paragraphs.

Supporting Comments:

One industry commenter (0161) and one industry group commenter (0107.1)
agreed that, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.24(k), appendix S to 40 CFR part 51
applies to state NA NSR permitting during the transition period.  They
endorsed our proposal that we issue NA NSR permits during this
transition where a state asserts that it lacks the legal ability to
apply the requirements of appendix S.  The commenters added that if we
continue to endorse interprecursor trading for NA NSR emission offsets,
the final rule must revise appendix S to authorize interprecursor
trading during the transition period.  The commenters believe that with
the paucity of existing direct PM2.5 and SO2 offsets, business expansion
in PM2.5 nonattainment areas from now until at least April 2008 likely
will be impossible unless this is done.

	One industry commenter (0111.1) expressed that we should amend appendix
S for purposes of NA NSR and should clarify that states that have not
specifically adopted a PM2.5 NA NSR program must utilize appendix S in
the interim.

	Without specifically mentioning appendix S or endorsing our proposal,
one state/local agency (0168) and one state/local agency association
(0165) urged EPA to make the necessary regulatory changes to allow
either states or EPA to implement immediately the PM2.5 NA NSR program
upon finalization of the PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule.  The state/local
agency association (0165) went on to say that states that must revise
their regulations and SIPs for the PM2.5 program should not be given any
deference in either doing so expeditiously or having EPA implement the
program in those states.

	Another state/local agency (0142) urged us to make the necessary
amendments to the pertinent Federal regulations so that states can adopt
them for their own programs or, in the event of a state refusal or
inability to carry out the program in an expeditious manner, allow EPA
to implement the PM2.5 NSR program.  The commenter suggested that the
2005 PM2.5 NSR guidance on use of PM10 emissions as surrogate for PM2.5
emissions in PM2.5 nonattainment areas should be suspended by the final
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule.

Opposing Comments:

	Three industry commenters (0074.1, 0096.1, 0125.1) requested continued
implementation of the 2005 PM2.5 NSR guidance that allows the use of
PM10 as a surrogate for the PM2.5 NA NSR program during the transition
period and beyond.  One of these industry commenters (0074.1) believes
that the current guidance of using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 would
provide clarity and certainty to the permitting agency and regulated
community.  The commenter noted that PM2.5 inventories and methods for
estimating emission rates are rudimentary and may even be nonexistent in
some cases, which would make permitting onerous and challenging for
agencies attempting to quantify offsets and define LAER provisions in
the period until PM2.5 SIPs are revised.  On the other hand, the
commenter stated, PM10 emission sources and potential emission rates are
well established due to historic regulation of the pollutant.  On this
basis, the commenter asserted that PM10 should continue to be a
surrogate for PM2.5 in major NSR evaluations not only during SIP
development, but also as an ongoing practice if a state determines that
further refinement of methodologies and additional information
collection are necessary to support a robust PM2.5 SIP.

Response:

We have decided to finalize the rules as proposed.  That is, after the
effective date of this rule, states will no longer be permitted to
implement a NA NSR program for PM10 as a surrogate for the PM2.5 NA NSR
program.  Most states will then need to implement a transitional PM2.5
NA NSR program under appendix S to 40 CFR part 51 (as amended in this
rulemaking action) until EPA approves changes to a state’s
SIP-approved NA NSR program to reflect the requirements of this rule.

In this action, we are finalizing our proposed revisions to appendix S
to include provisions necessary to implement a transitional NA NSR
program for PM2.5, including SERs applicable to major modifications for
PM2.5 and, as appropriate, precursors.  Additionally, since we have
decided to allow limited interpollutant trading for purposes of offsets
under the PM2.5 NA NSR program (as discussed above in section 9.4 of
this document), we are amending appendix S to allow interpollutant
trading at least for PM2.5 in this final rule.

Appendix S applies directly to new and modified major stationary
sources.  In accordance with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(c) of
the Act, we believe that the majority of states have the legal authority
to issue permits consistent with these requirements under an existing
SIP-approved permitting program.  Nonetheless, at least one state has
reported that it lacks the legal authority to issue permits implementing
the requirements of appendix S under its existing permitting rules.  If
a state is unable to apply the requirements of appendix S, we will act
as the reviewing authority for the relevant portion of the permit.

We believe it is appropriate for EPA to issue the preconstruction
permits in such circumstances.  Congress amended the Act in 1990 to
remove the requirements that would have applied a construction ban in
areas that lacked a SIP-approved part D permit program.  Thus, we
believe it is consistent with congressional intent that either the state
or EPA issue permits to construct during the interim period.  See the
preamble of the proposal for this rule for more detail on the legal
basis for requiring states to issue NA NSR permits pursuant to
appendix S during the SIP development period (70 FR 66045-46).

Our 2005 PM2.5 NSR guidance provided that states should use their
approved PM10 NA NSR program as a surrogate for a PM2.5 program until we
promulgate a final PM2.5 NSR implementation rule.  The guidance also
reiterated that states should continue to follow our 1997 guidance for
PSD requirements.  Accordingly, as of the effective date of the final
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule, the 2005 PM2.5 NSR guidance will no
longer apply in PM2.5 nonattainment areas.  As discussed above in
section 9.1, the 1997 guidance will remain in effect for PSD in the
SIP-approved states during the SIP development period, while 40 CFR
52.21 will apply immediately for PSD in the delegated states.

Comments on NSR Transition for PM2.5 Precursors

The proposal preamble stated that we were considering whether NSR
applicability to precursors should be stayed for one or more precursors
during the SIP development period.  We solicited comments on the
applicability of NSR to precursors during the SIP development period.
The following paragraphs present a summary of the comments received.

Comments Favoring a Stay:

One state/local agency (0124.1) supported staying the Federal NSR
applicability to precursors because its state cannot impose obligations
on NSR applicants until those obligations are established in state
regulations or statute law.  The commenter further stated that the
presence of a Federal requirement prior to adoption of the state
requirement creates legal difficulties for applicants who rely primarily
on the state’s NSR program as fulfilling all Federal requirements.

Four industry/industry group commenters (0096.1, 0107.1, 0111.1, 0161)
supported waiving the regulation of all PM2.5 precursors during the
transition period.  One of these industry commenters (0111.1) stated
that staying the regulation of precursors during transition allows
states the time to develop experience and knowledge in establishing
local photochemical models and to performance test their accuracy.  The
commenter argued that regulating precursors at this time would pose PSD
preconstruction monitoring requirement problems as time is needed for
states to refine their monitoring networks and modeling protocols.

Two of these commenters (0107.1, 0161) supported waiving the regulation
of PM2.5 precursors during the transition period provided appendix S,
the 1997 guidance, and 40 CFR 52.21 include language that allows
interprecursor trading and netting so that direct PM2.5 emissions
increases can be offset or netted with SO2 and NOx decreases.

Three industry/industry group commenters (0105.1, 0111.1, 0119)
supported staying NSR applicability for NOx under this rulemaking until
the SIP submission deadline.  They stated that sources operating in
nonattainment areas would otherwise be subject to NOx NSR standards that
may lack scientific and legal support.

Comments Opposing a Stay:

One state/local agency (0142) requested that SO2 precursor emissions be
included in NSR in the time period from adoption of the PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule until the SIP development period ends (up to April
2008).  The commenter asserted that since SO2 will be considered a PM2.5
precursor nationwide, states will not be able to opt out of including
these emissions in PM2.5 NSR; therefore, they should be included in the
interim period.

One state/local agency (0168) and one agency association (0165) believe
that all applicable provisions of NSR should be applied to the default
precursors SO2 and NOx, as they do not believe it would hamper a
state’s ability to demonstrate that NOx could be exempted as a
precursor.  The state/local agency association (0165) went on to state
that if we determine that ammonia and VOC are to be regulated as
precursors, the commenter would support that such a determination should
await the SIP development process.

One environmental group commenter (0154.1) stated that it would be a
mistake to stay applicability to precursors because precursors are as
significant to PM2.5 as VOC and NOx are to ozone.  The commenter went on
to assert that EPA has no authority to waive regulation of PM2.5
precursors, either during or after the SIP development period.  The
commenter argued that doing so would allow major new sources to
substantially increase emissions and worsen an area’s PM2.5 problem
before the area has even developed a plan for reducing existing
pollution levels sufficiently to meet RFP and attainment requirements.

Another environmental group commenter (0106.1) believes that exempting
precursors from NSR until the April 2008 SIP submittal date would delay
pollution cleanups in nonattainment areas, making attainment of the
PM2.5 standard more difficult.

Response:

As discussed in section 2, we are taking final action on NSR
applicability for PM2.5 precursors in the final PM2.5 NSR Implementation
Rule.  Specifically, we are designating SO2 as a national precursor to
PM2.5 in all areas, NOx as a “presumed-in” precursor in all areas,
and VOC and ammonia as “presumed-out” precursors in all areas.
Thus, states have the option of excluding NOx as a precursor by
demonstrating that NOx emissions do not contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 concentrations in a particular area.  In addition, states
have the option of identifying VOC and/or ammonia as precursor(s) by
demonstrating that emissions of VOC and/or ammonia contribute
significantly in an area, and thus should be subject to major NSR.

However, based on the comments, we have been persuaded that SIP-approved
states will not have the authority to regulate PM2.5 precursors before
they have amended their SIPs and state law to incorporate these
requirements.  Thus, in order to allow time for states to revise their
regulations to incorporate such requirements, the final rule does not
require regulation of SO2 or NOx as precursors to PM2.5 under NSR until
states revise their SIPs.  At that time, SO2 will become a precursor in
all areas by default.  The same is true for NOx, barring an approved
demonstration to the contrary for a particular area.  Ammonia and VOC
are considered not to be precursors until an approved demonstration that
they should be treated as such for a particular area.

Other Comments on NSR Transition

Comment:

	Five industry and industry group commenters (0074.1, 0089, 0095.1,
0109.1, 0111.1) asserted that a PM10 major NSR program should continue
to be used as a surrogate for a PM2.5 program (both PSD and NA NSR)
until difficulties with various aspects of the PM2.5 program are
overcome.

	One of the industry commenters (0074.1) supported the continued use of
PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 not only during the SIP development
process, but also as an ongoing practice if a state determines that
further refinement of methodologies and additional information
collection are necessary to support a robust PM2.5 SIP.  This commenter
noted that PM2.5 inventories and methods for estimating emission rates
are rudimentary and may even be nonexistent in some cases, which would
make permitting onerous and challenging for agencies.

	One of the industry group commenters (0109.1) stated that, as a
practical matter, until technical issues of measuring fine particulate
(i.e., filterable and condensable portions) and predicting through
modeling fine particulate formation are resolved, EPA should continue to
implement PM2.5 NSR for fine particulate utilizing the PM10 NSR program
per the 1997 and 2005 PM2.5 NSR Transition Policies.

	Another of the industry commenters (0111.1) noted that the proposal
preamble indicated we were relying on the 1997 guidance until “certain
difficulties were resolved, primarily the lack of necessary tools to
calculate the emissions of PM2.5 and related precursors, the lack of
adequate modeling techniques to project ambient impacts, and the lack of
PM2.5 monitoring sites.”  The commenter disagreed with our assessment
that these problems have been resolved in most respects, and asserted
that the most significant of the problems have not been resolved – the
lack of necessary tools to measure or calculate emissions of PM2.5 and
to adequately model the transformation of SO2 and NOx emissions into
PM2.5 for predicting single source impacts on ambient air quality.  The
commenter favored continued implementation of the 1997 guidance until
such time as test methods are promulgated, which will also allow
additional modeling data to be developed, monitoring sites to be
installed, and ambient data to be collected.

Response:

	As discussed above, the final PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule provides
that after the effective date of this rule, states will no longer be
permitted to implement a NA NSR program for PM10 as a surrogate for the
PM2.5 NA NSR program.  For purposes of PSD, SIP-approved states may
continue to implement a PM10 program pursuant to the 1997 guidance as a
surrogate to meet the PSD program requirements for PM2.5 during their
SIP development process.  Delegated states must implement the PM2.5 PSD
program found in the revised 40 CFR 52.21 beginning on the effective
date of the final rule.

	We do not believe it is necessary to provide transition periods longer
than these for the overall PM2.5 major NSR program.  One of the primary
causes of uncertainty in the PM2.5 program is the measurement of the
condensable fraction of emissions.  As discussed above in section 5, we
are providing an extended transition period for the inclusion of
condensable PM emissions while we work on improving measurement
methodologies.  In addition, we have proposed PM2.5 increments, SILs,
and SMCs (72 FR 54112, September 21, 2007).  In that proposed
rulemaking, we have proposed that increments, SILs, and SMCs and related
analyses for the PM2.5 PSD program be based on direct PM2.5 emissions
only, without consideration of PM2.5 precursors.

Comments on Minor NSR Programs for PM2.5

	In the proposal preamble, we stated that states must have minor NSR
programs pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act.  We asserted that
states must amend these programs to reflect the final rule, that is, to
include direct PM2.5 emissions and precursor emissions as included in
the major NSR program for PM2.5.

Comment:

	One industry group commenter (0109.1) asserted that states are not
required by the Act to adopt minor NSR programs for PM2.5.  The
commenter stated that the Act refers to minor NSR as merely one option a
state has for implementing a NAAQS, but does not mandate such a program.
 The commenter quoted section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act to require
“regulation ... as necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] are
achieved.”  The commenter indicated that since relatively few areas
need to adopt local measures to achieve the standard, minor NSR programs
would not “be necessary” to achieve the NAAQS.

Response:

	Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires each SIP to include “regulation of the
modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas
covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are achieved,
including a permit program as required in parts C and D.”  We have
always interpreted this section to require states to establish a minor
NSR program for all pollutants for which there is a NAAQS (along with
any designated precursors).  Accordingly, the implementing regulations
at 40 CFR 51.160 – 51.164 require such a program.  Thus, we have
determined by regulation that a minor source construction permit program
is necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved.

Other Comments on Major NSR for PM2.5

Comment:

One industry commenter (0119.1) requested that we designate areas that
will achieve attainment without further regulatory development as
conditional attainment areas for which NSR is suspended.  The commenter
explained that there are areas for which modeling indicates attainment
will be achieved with the implementation of the CAIR rule and other
regulations in the “pipeline” and that EPA should not impose NSR for
particulate emissions in these areas.

Response:

	Part D of title I of the Act requires a NA NSR program in all
nonattainment areas.  We do not believe that we have discretion to
exempt any nonattainment area from the NA NSR requirements.  In any
case, with the uncertainties inherent in modeling, we believe on policy
grounds that it is prudent to move forward with NA NSR programs in the
areas described by the commenter.  It should also be noted that such
areas would not long be subject to NA NSR.  Upon redesignation to
attainment for PM2.5, such areas would fall under PSD for PM2.5.

Comment:

	One state/local agency (0081.1) pointed out a potential issue with
double counting of emissions reductions where the CAIR regulations
overlap with the use of emission reduction credits (ERCs) under NSR.  As
background, the commenter noted that the Act specifies that offsetting
emission reductions taken together with all other emission increases and
decreases in a nonattainment area must provide for RFP, which is defined
as an annual incremental improvement towards attainment of the NAAQS.
The commenter pointed out that, as a result of inclusion of large power
stations in rural nonattainment areas, many areas may see no RFP if
controls are not installed on these plants – in order to allow new
sources in the area, controls will have to be installed.  The commenter
indicated that all of the reductions may not, however, be surplus to the
SIP if the state has already taken credit for CAIR reductions at such
power stations.

	The commenter (0081.1) explained the overlap as follows:

Typically the planning emission inventory “credits” an allowance
program (e.g., CAIR) by setting the projected emissions from budget
program-covered sources equal to their allocated allowances, which are
usually less than the source’s base year actual emissions.

If the source installs controls, it cannot take NSR offset credit for
the reduction down to the allocation level since the SIP already took
this credit.

If the source reduces its emissions below the SIP credit level it could
generate NSR credit (i.e., ERCs) but in order to fulfill the SIP budget
obligations, an equivalent amount of allowances must be surrendered for
any new emissions that are allowed by the offset credit.  Otherwise, the
emission reductions are being counted and used twice.

If the new source is subject to the budget program, this will be
satisfied automatically; if not, allowances equal to the allowable
emissions from the new source need to be retired.

	The commenter (0081.1) stated that since EPA’s CAIR and NSR
regulations do not address this issue, and because of the overlapping
complexity inherent to the NSR and CAIR requirements, it is virtually
guaranteed that double counting may occur if the issue is not addressed
in the final rule.  The commenter believes that the simplistic general
NSR requirement that credits be “surplus to the SIP” is inadequate
to prevent double counting from occurring.  The commenter noted that
Pennsylvania has adopted NSR and interstate ozone transport NOx Budget
Trading Program provisions that remedy this defect at 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 145, Section 145.90, and provided the language of these
provisions.  The commenter indicated that the Pennsylvania provisions
address the multiple aspects of ERC and allowance interactions and fully
prevent double counting without constraining the proper functioning of
either program, and also do not allow non-ozone season ERC reductions to
allow ozone season emissions growth.  The commenter recommended that
these provisions be tailored as necessary to integrate with individual
state emission credit transfer mechanisms, and be included in each
state’s NSR and allowance-based trading program regulations.  The
commenter further recommended that the PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule
include similar provisions.

Response:

	While the commenter has presented some valid arguments for preventing
double counting of emissions reductions in general, we did not address
this topic in the November 2005 proposal.  Thus, we are unable to
address this subject in this final action.

 Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting sources from contributing significantly to nonattainment in
another State or interfering with another State’s measures for PSD or
to protect visibility.

 On October 17, 2006 (after these comments were submitted), we finalized
our proposal to lower the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 (g/m3.

) hU

hU

hU

萑ː葠ː

&

w

Ì

-

¬

Fð hß

hß

hß

h	s

h	s

	”

 hn

0

3

l

o

u

x

¡

¢

§

hÀ

hÀ

hÀ

hÀ

 h

 h

hµ

hµ

+

hµ

hµ

hµ

hß

hß

h·

 h·

h·

  h·

h·

 h·

h·

hß

hß

hµ

 h

 h

 h¦Q

摧冦

h¦Q

h¦Q

h¦Q

h¦Q

·

Ð

Ó

Ô

0

Y

hµ

h‘

h¦Q

7Y

c

ˆ

”

Ö

Ø

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

hß

h

hè

hè

 h>

 h™^

 h™^

hµ

 h>

 h¡

 h¡

 h¡

 h¡

 h¡

 h¡

Þ

ß

í

î

ï

ð

i

k

n

o

p

Œ

MŒ

ú

û

 hp

 hp

 hp

 hp

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

hz

 hG

 hG

H* hx

 hx

h

 h”

F

F

F

 hÁ*

 h»

"

z

“

•

˜

Q

S

b

c

w

~

€

©

¬

°

µ

º

Ö

å

 h”

 h”

 h”

 h”

 h²

H* h²

 h”

 hG

0 citation given by the commenters (70 FR 66019, column 1), we believe
that they were referring to what we designated as sub-option 2 under our
first proposed alternative approach to RACT in PM2.5 nonattainment
areas.  Under sub-option 2, we would have required States to require
RACT controls on all sources with PTE of 50 tpy or greater.

 See “Interim Implementation for New Source Review Requirements for
PM2.5,” J. Seitz, EPA, October 23, 1997.

 See “Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM-2.5
Nonattainment Areas,” Stephen D. Page, EPA, April 5, 2005.

 We have revised appendix S to incorporate the 2002 NSR reform changes
(72 FR 10367, March 8, 2007).

 PAGE

  PAGE  iv

  PAGE  34


[Federal Register: July 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 39389-39390]
[DOCID:fr18jy07-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP07-414-000; CP07-415-000; CP07-416-000]

Golden Triangle Storage, Inc. Notice of Applications

July 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 29, 2007 and as supplemented on July 6,
2007 Golden Triangle Storage, Inc. (Golden Triangle), 1200 Smith
Street, Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77002, pursuant to section 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's
regulations, filed an abbreviated application for certificates of
public convenience and necessity, seeking authority to develop and
operate a two-cavern salt dome natural gas storage facility located
near Beaumont in Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas; to provide open-
access firm and interruptible storage and hub services in interstate
commerce at market-based rates under 18 CFR part 284, subpart G; and to
undertake the limited construction and operation activities permitted
under 18 CFR part 157, subpart F. This filing is available for review
at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at FERCOnlineSupport or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
David Schultz, Project Manager, Golden Triangle Storage, Inc., 1200
Smith Street, Suite 900, Houston, TX 77002, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
    The Golden Triangle Storage Project consists of developing two
natural gas storage caverns in the Spindletop salt dome, developing up
to five salt brine disposal wells, installing a 16-inch freshwater
pipeline, installing a 16-inch brine disposal pipeline, installing a
leaching plant, installing 14,205 horsepower of compression, and
installing approximately 8.9 miles of 24-inch header pipeline and six
associated meter stations and pipeline interconnects. Golden Triangle
says that the facilities will ultimately provide an estimated 16
billion cubic feet (Bcf) of high deliverability, multi-cycle working
storage capacity in two stages of development. In the first stage,
Golden Triangle will solution mine each of the storage caverns to a
volume of 8.2 million barrels for a working storage capacity or about 6
Bcf per cavern, and then place the caverns in commercial service, the
first in late 2010 and the second in early 2013. Thereafter, in the
second stage, through use of a partial cavern refilling solution mining
technique, Golden Triangle proposes to gradually enlarge each of the
caverns over a 10-12 year period to a potential maximum volume of up to
12.5 million barrels for a working storage capacity of 8 Bcf per cavern
(16 Bcf in total). Golden Triangle seeks Commission certificate
authorizations for both caverns and both stages of cavern development
at this time.
    Golden Triangle says that the need for the Project's services has
already been confirmed by the market. In response to a non-binding open
season held in May 2007, Golden Triangle received bids representing
about three and a half times the initial 6 Bcf working gas capacity of
Cavern 1 from a diverse group of potential customers, including
marketers, producers and other entities. Golden Triangle is now
negotiating

precedent agreements with the highest bidders for longterm, firm
service contracts. Once it concludes negotiations, Golden Triangle says
it will file its executed precedent agreements as a supplement to this
application.
    Golden Triangle proposes to offer open access firm and
interruptible storage and hub services and requests authority to charge
market-based rates for its proposed services, which it says is
consistent with the requirements of the Commission's Alternative
Ratemaking Policies. The proposed terms and conditions for Golden
Triangle's services are included in the pro forma tariff included in
Exhibit P of the application.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this Project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
285.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: July 23, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13852 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9865-9867]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective March 1, 2011. Comments must be
received on or before March 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2006-25246;
FMCSA-2006-26066, using any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a
comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 13 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 13 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
    They are:

Kreis C. Baldridge
James L. Baynes
Daniel H. Bungartz
Steven J. Clark
Donald D. Daniels
Michael A. Fouch
Thanh V. Ha
Carl A. Lohrbach
Jeffrey L. Olson
Donnie Riggs
Randall S. Surber
Ernest W. Waff
Joseph W. Wigley

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two-year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 67 FR 57266; 69 FR 52741; 71 FR
55820; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 1050; 74 FR 6211).
Each of these 13 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and
has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and
that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each
record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies
over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the
vision exemption standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by March 24, 2011.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 13 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will

take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: February 11, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-3900 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70480-70481]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0662; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-6]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; West Creek, NJ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at West
Creek, NJ, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning
System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving
Eagles Nest Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the
National Airspace System.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2014-0662; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-6, 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 (404)
305-6364.

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-2014-0662; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-6) 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.
    Persons 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-2014-0662; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-6.'' 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
9:00 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
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 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 Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at West
Creek, NJ, providing the controlled airspace required to support the
new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Eagles Nest
Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface within a 9.5-mile radius of the airport would be established
for IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will 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 Eagles Nest
Airport, West Creek, NJ.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

0
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]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE NJ E5 West Creek, NJ [New]

Eagles Nest Airport, NJ
    (Lat. 39[deg]39'54'' N., long. 74[deg]18'27'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.5-mile radius of Eagles Nest Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 17, 2014.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2014-27972 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


50136 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2003 / Notices ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0272; FRL   7323   2]

Pesticide Products; Registration Applications AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3( c)( 4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), as amended. DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket ID number OPP   2003   0272, must be received on or before September 19, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Tompkins, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   5697; e mail address: tompkins. jim@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. Registration Applications. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0272. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 06 Aug 19, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20AUN1. SGM 20AUN1 50137 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2003 / Notices information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0272. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0272. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0272. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA., Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0272. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 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 CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any 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 and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

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

II. Registration Applications EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3( c)( 4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.

Products Containing Active Ingredients not Included in Any Previously Registered Products 1. File symbol: 100   RRGA. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection. Inc., P. O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409. Product name: Butafenacil Technical. Active ingredient: Butafenacil at 98%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. For formulation into herbicide end use products; for use as a cotton harvest aid. 2. File symbol: 100   RRGE. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection. Product name: TSS 75 WG. Active ingredient: Trifloxysulfuron sodium at 75%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. Control of certain broadleaf weeds, sedges, and grasses in almonds, citrus, cotton, sugarcane, and tomatoes. 3. File symbol: 100   RRGG. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection. Product name: Trifloxysulfuron sodium Technical; Active ingredient: Trifloxysulfuron sodium at 94%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. For formulation into herbicides; for use on almonds, citrus, cotton, sugarcane, tomatoes, and turf. 4. File symbol: 100   RRGT. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection. Product name: Inspire. Active ingredient: Butafenacil at 9.6%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. For use as cotton harvest aid. 5. File symbol: 100   RRGU. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection. Product name: Monument. Active ingredient: Trifloxysulfuron sodium at 75%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. Control of certain broadleaf weeds, sedges, and grasses in turf.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: August 13, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   21351 Filed 8   19   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 06 Aug 19, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20AUN1. SGM 20AUN1


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1550-1551]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-472, OMB Control No. 3235-0531]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request, Upon Written Request Copies
Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA
Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 0-1

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') plans to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previous approved collection
of information discussed below.
    The Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') \1\ establishes a
comprehensive framework for regulating the organization and operation
of investment companies (``funds''). A principal objective of the Act
is to protect fund investors by addressing the conflicts of interest
that exist between funds and their investment advisers and other
affiliated persons. The Act places significant responsibility on the
fund board of directors in overseeing the operations of the fund and
policing the relevant conflicts of interest.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a.
    \2\ For example, fund directors must approve investment advisory
and distribution contracts. See 15 U.S.C. 80a-15(a), (b), and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In one of its first releases, the Commission exercised its
rulemaking authority pursuant to sections 38(a) and 40(b) of the Act by
adopting rule 0-1 (17 CFR 270.0-1).\3\ Rule 0-1, as subsequently
amended on numerous occasions, provides definitions for the terms used
by the Commission in the rules and regulations it has adopted pursuant
to the Act. The rule also contains a number of rules of construction
for terms that are defined either in the Act itself or elsewhere in the
Commission's rules and regulations. Finally, rule 0-1 defines terms
that serve as conditions to the availability of certain of the
Commission's exemptive rules. More specifically, the term ``independent
legal counsel,'' as defined in rule 0-1, sets out conditions that funds
must meet in order to rely on any of ten exemptive rules (``exemptive
rules'') under the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Investment Company Act Release No. 4 (Oct. 29, 1940) (5 FR
4316 (Oct. 31, 1940)). Note that rule 0-1 was originally adopted as
rule N-1.
    \4\ The relevant exemptive rules are: Rule 10f-3 (17 CFR
270.10f-3), rule 12b-1 (17 CFR 270.12b-1), rule 15a-4(b)(2) (17 CFR
270.15a-4(b)(2)), rule 17a-7 (17 CFR 270.17a-7), rule 17a-8 (17 CFR
270.17a--8), rule 17d-1(d)(7) (17 CFR 270.17d-1(d)(7)), rule 17e-
1(c) (17 CFR 270.17e-1(c)), rule 17g-1 (17 CFR 270.17g-1), rule 18f-
-3 (17 CFR 270.18f-3), and rule 23c-3 (17 CFR 270.23c-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission amended rule 0-1 to include the definition of the
term ``independent legal counsel'' in 2001.\5\ This amendment was
designed to enhance the effectiveness of fund boards of directors and
to better enable investors to assess the independence of those
directors. The Commission also amended the exemptive rules to require
that any person who serves as legal counsel to the independent
directors of any fund that relies on any of the exemptive rules must be
an ``independent legal counsel.'' This requirement was added because
independent directors can better perform the responsibilities assigned
to them under the Act and the rules if they have the assistance of
truly independent legal counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Role of Independent Directors of Investment Companies,
Investment Company Act Release No. 24816 (Jan. 2, 2001) (66 FR 3735
(Jan. 16, 2001)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the board's counsel has represented the fund's investment
adviser, principal underwriter, administrator (collectively,
``management organizations'') or their ``control persons'' \6\ during
the past two years, rule 0-1 requires that the board's independent
directors make a determination about the adequacy of the counsel's
independence. A majority of the board's independent directors are
required to reasonably determine, in the exercise of their judgment,
that the counsel's prior or current representation of the management
organizations or their control persons was sufficiently limited to
conclude that it is unlikely to adversely affect the counsel's
professional judgment and legal representation. Rule 0-1 also requires
that a record for the basis of this determination is made in the
minutes of the directors' meeting. In addition, the independent
directors must have obtained an undertaking from the counsel to provide
them with the information necessary to make their determination and to
update promptly that information when the person begins to represent a
management organization or control person, or when he or she materially
increases his or her representation. Generally, the independent
directors must re-evaluate their determination no less frequently than
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``control person'' is any person--other than a fund--
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common
control, with any of the fund's management organizations. See 17 CFR
270.01(a)(6)(iv)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any fund that relies on one of the exemptive rules must comply with
the requirements in the definition of ``independent legal counsel''
under rule 0-1. We assume that approximately 3035 funds rely on at
least one of the exemptive rules annually.\7\ We further assume that
the independent directors of approximately one-third (1,010) of those
funds would need to make the required determination in order for their
counsel to meet the definition of independent legal counsel.\8\ We
estimate that each of these 1,010 funds would be required to spend, on
average, 0.75 hours annually to comply with the recordkeeping
requirement associated with this determination, for a total annual
burden of approximately 758 hours. Based on this estimate, the total
annual cost for all funds' compliance with this rule is approximately
$175,523. To calculate this total annual cost, the Commission staff
assumed that approximately two-thirds of the total annual hour burden
(505 hours) would be incurred by a compliance manager with an average
hourly wage rate of $312 per hour,\9\ and one-third of the annual hour
burden (253 hours) would be incurred by compliance clerk with an
average hourly wage rate of $71 per hour.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Based on statistics compiled by Commission staff, we
estimate that there are approximately 3373 funds that could rely on
one or more of the exemptive rules (this figure reflects the three-
year average of open-end and closed-end funds (3,329) and business
development companies (104)). Of those funds, we assume that
approximately 90 percent (3,035) actually rely on at least one
exemptive rules annually.
    \8\ We assume that the independent directors of the remaining
two-thirds of those funds will choose not to have counsel, or will
rely on counsel who has not recently represented the fund's
management organizations or control persons. In both circumstances,
it would not be necessary for the fund's independent directors to
make a determination about their counsel's independence.
    \9\ The estimated hourly wages used in this PRA analysis were
derived from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association's Reports on Management and Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry (2013) (modified to account for an 1800-hour
work year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead) (adjusted for inflation), and Office
Salaries in the Securities Industry (2013) (modified to account for
an 1800-hour work year and multiplied by 2.93 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead) (adjusted for
inflation).
    \10\ (505 x $312/hour) + (253 x $71hour) = $175,523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These burden hour estimates are based upon the Commission staff's
experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of
average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction

Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a
representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 5, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00144 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 37033]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15826]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75273; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Adopting New Equity Trading Rules Relating to Trading Sessions,
Order Ranking and Display, and Order Execution To Reflect the
Implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading Technology
Platform

June 23, 2015.
    On April 30, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') 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 adopt new
equity trading rules relating to Trading Sessions, Order Ranking and
Display, and Order Execution to reflect the implementation of Pillar,
the Exchange's new trading technology platform. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 19,
2015.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74951 (May 13,
2015), 80 FR 28721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 approved or
disapproved. The 45th day for this filing is July 3, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time 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 so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates August 17, 2015, as
the date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15826 Filed 6-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P