[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23516-23517]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08912]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15028-000]

Whitewater Green Energy, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 12, 2020, the Whitewater Green Energy, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed
Whitewater Creek Hydroelectric Project No. 15028-000, to be located on
Russel and Whitewater Creeks, near the town of Idanha, in Marion and
Linn Counties, Oregon. The project would be located entirely on U.S.
Forest Service lands. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 9.5-
foot-high, 40-foot-wide weir on Russell Creek; (2) a 19,500-foot-long,
60-inch-diameter steel penstock; (3) a 50-foot-long by 40-foot-wide
concrete powerhouse containing one Pelton turbine rated at 7 megawatts;
(4) a 160-foot-long, 72-inch-diameter tailrace discharging into
Whitewater Creek; (5) a 2.25-mile-long, 12,000 kilovolt-amperes
transmission line extending underground from the project to a point of
interconnection to an existing outside transmission line (the point of
interconnection); (6) an access road along side of the penstock; and
(7) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the
Whitewater Creek Project would be 50 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: David Harmon, 2532 Santiam Highway, Albany,
Oregon 97322; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: John Matkowski; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866)

208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15028) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 21, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08912 Filed 4-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71018-71021]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28420]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70915; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-140]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify NASDAQ Connectivity Options and Fees

November 21, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 8, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify NASDAQ connectivity options and
fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from NASDAQ's Web
site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/Filings/, at NASDAQ's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7034(b) regarding connectivity
to NASDAQ. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish
connectivity and installation fees for a 1Gb Ultra low latency fiber
connection option, and to adopt installation fees for subscriptions
through January 31, 2014.
    The Exchange currently offers various bandwidth and speed options
for connectivity to NASDAQ, including copper, fiber, and wireless
options in bandwidths ranging from 1Gb to 40Gb. Thus, for example,
NASDAQ currently offers both a 1Gb fiber connection, and a 1Gb copper
connection.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 7034(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In keeping with changes in technology, the Exchange now proposes to
provide another 1Gb fiber connection offering, which uses new lower
latency switches.\4\ A switch is a type of network hardware that acts
as the ``gatekeeper'' for all of a co-located client's orders sent to
the System \5\ at the NASDAQ co-

location facility and orders them in sequence for entry into the System
for execution. Each of NASDAQ's current connection offerings (copper,
fiber, wireless) uses different switches, but the switches are of
uniform type within each offering (i.e., all fiber connectivity options
currently use the same switches). As a consequence, all co-located
client subscribers to a particular connectivity option receive the same
latency in terms of the capabilities of their switches. The 1Gb Ultra
offering will use a low latency switch, which provides faster
processing of orders sent to it in comparison to the current 1G switch
in use for co-location connectivity. As a consequence, co-located
clients needing only 1Gb of bandwidth, but that seek faster processing
of those orders as they enter NASDAQ's co-location facility now have
the option to subscribe to a faster and more efficient connection to
the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``latency'' for these purposes is a measure of the
time it takes for an order to enter into a switch and then exit for
entry into the System.
    \5\ As defined by Rule 4751(a).
    \6\ The Exchange is not offering a low latency option for other
bandwidth connections at this time, but may do so in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes a monthly subscription fee of $2,500 for a
1Gb Ultra connection, and a one-time installation fee of $1,500. NASDAQ
believes that the pricing reflects the hardware and other
infrastructure and maintenance costs to NASDAQ associated with offering
technology that is at the forefront of the industry. The $1,500
installation fee for the 1Gb Ultra product exceeds the $1,000
installation fee for the existing 1Gb product due to the added
complexity of installing the Ultra product. In order to achieve lower
latency, the Ultra product requires not only the installation of a
fiber telecommunications line; it also requires the additional
installation of sophisticated switching equipment.
    The new low latency service will be completely optional based on
whether potential users perceive sufficient value to adopt the new
service. This new low latency service decreases the time individual
orders are processed and market data is transmitted by these new
switches. The Exchange's proposal provides the co-located client the
option for faster switch processing, which is highly-valued among some
market participants. NASDAQ notes that other markets have adopted low-
latency connectivity options for their users. For example, the
International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE'') offers a 10Gb low
latency Ethernet connectivity option to its users, which provides a
``higher speed network to access [ISE's] Optimise trading system.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66525 (March 7,
2012), 77 FR 14847 (March 13, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to provide a waiver of the installation
fees for client orders of 1Gb Ultra fiber connectivity to NASDAQ
completed between the effectiveness of this proposal and January 31,
2014. The Exchange is providing the waiver to assist its co-located
clients in upgrading to lower latency connections to meet the growing
needs of co-located clients' business operations.
    NASDAQ is also deleting text that refers to an installation fee
waiver time period for 10Gb Ultra connections, which has since expired,
and replacing it with the fee waiver for the 1Gb Ultra offering.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\
in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates
or controls. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customer, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act because the fees assessed for 1Gb Ultra fiber
connectivity allow the Exchange to cover the costs associated with the
purchase of new equipment for this new offering. NASDAQ is offering 1Gb
Ultra fiber connectivity at a premium to the current 1Gb offering but
at a discount to the 10Gb and 40Gb fiber connectivity offerings as
these provide more bandwidth available on NASDAQ, which is important
for co-located clients that have high order flow and ingest large
amounts of market data and demand the greatest bandwidth possible to
handle such message flow. Some co-located clients, however, do not have
bandwidth demands that would require 10Gb or 40Gb fiber bandwidth but
rather put a premium on reducing latency. The 1Gb Ultra fiber
connectivity it designed to meet this demand.
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed one-time installation fee is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because it is identical to
the installation fees assessed for 40Gb fiber connectivity and 10Gb
Ultra connectivity under the rule. NASDAQ notes that it will incur the
same costs associated with setting up a subscriber with either 40Gb
fiber or 10Gb Ultra fiber connectivity. As a consequence, NASDAQ
believes that it is reasonable to assess the same installation fee as
40Gb fiber and 10Gb Ultra. The Exchange also believes that its proposal
to waive temporarily the 1Gb Ultra fiber connection installation fee is
reasonable because it will assist its co-located clients in upgrading
to lower latency connections to meet the growing needs of the co-
located clients' business operations at a time in the industry when
speed continues to be a driver of the U.S. securities markets.
Moreover, the Exchange notes that it has previously waived the
installation fees for the 10Gb Ultra and 40Gb fiber connections for a
limited time after these connectivity options were first
introduced.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66428 (February 21,
2012), 77 FR 11602 (February 27, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-028).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to covering costs, the proposed fees provide the
Exchange a profit while providing customers the ability to reduce the
latency of their orders sent via these new connections. As discussed
above, ISE offers different connectivity options with respect to
latency, charging higher fees for lower latency options.\12\ Therefore,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable also to charge higher fees for
lower latency options. Also, NASDAQ's fee compares favorably to fees at
NYSE Arca, Inc. NYSE Arca offers a 1Gb connection for a monthly fee of
$5,000, which is double NASDAQ's proposed monthly fee for the 1Gb Ultra
fiber connectivity option.\13\ NASDAQ notes that the 1Gb Ultra fiber
option provides connectivity to all seven of the NASDAQ OMX Group
markets, whereas the offerings of

other exchanges provide far fewer.\14\ For these reasons, the Exchange
believes the proposed fees for 1Gb Ultra fiber connectivity to NASDAQ
are reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ISE offers both an Ethernet connectivity option and an
Ethernet/Low Latency connectivity option. At 10Gb, the Ethernet
option costs $4,000 monthly and the Ethernet/Low Latency option
costs $7,000 monthly. See http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf.
    \13\ NYSE charges $5,000 per month for a 1Gb LCN (Liquidity
Center Network) Connection. See https://usequities.nyx.com/sites/usequities.nyx.com/files/nyse_price_list_9_3_13_-_corrected.pdf, page 14.
    \14\ The ISE connectivity offering provides access to one market
and the NYSE Arca connectivity offering provides connectivity to the
four markets of NYSE Euronext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed 1Gb Ultra fiber
installation and connectivity fees are equitably allocated in that all
co-located clients that voluntarily select this service option will be
charged the same amount to cover the hardware, installation, testing
and connection costs to maintain and manage the enhanced connection.
The proposed fees allow the Exchange to recoup costs associated with
providing the 1Gb Ultra fiber connection and provide the Exchange a
profit while providing customers with the more efficient connection to
the System in terms of latency. All co-located clients have the option
to select this voluntary co-location connectivity option; however,
NASDAQ is not currently eliminating any existing connectivity options.
Accordingly, a co-located client may elect not to subscribe to the 1Gb
Ultra fiber connectivity option and retain the option to which it is
currently subscribed.
    The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customer, issuers,
brokers and dealers. The 1Gb Ultra fiber connectivity option assists
co-located clients in making their network connectivity more efficient
by reducing the time orders take to reach the System once sent from
their co-located server and also the time that market data takes to
reach their co-located server. Speed and efficiency are important
drivers of the U.S. securities markets and NASDAQ is offering a co-
location connectivity solution that promotes these drivers by providing
technology that is available to all co-located clients. The Exchange
believes the enhanced 1Gb Ultra connection will remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because NASDAQ will provide this switching technology to
market participants, which will improve the speed and efficiency of
processing orders arriving at the market from clients' co-located
servers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes that the reduction in latencies
attributed to the enhanced 1Gb Ultra connection option serves to
protect investors and the public interest. The reduction in latency
will provide investors with the most efficient means of processing
orders once they reach the Exchange. Not all clients require the Higher
bandwidth options like NASDAQ's current 10Gb, 10Gb Ultra and 40Gb fiber
connectivity, so this new option enables clients to lower their latency
while not increasing the bandwidth.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed installation and
subscription fees for the 1Gb Ultra fiber connectivity option are not
unfairly discriminatory because all users have the option to subscribe
to co-locate with NASDAQ and subscribe to the 1Gb Ultra connection.
There is no differentiation among co-located clients with regard to the
fees charged for these services. The Exchange believes the proposal to
waive the 1Gb Ultra fiber connection installation fee is not unfairly
discriminatory because the waiver of fees is provided to all co-located
clients that volunteer for this particular service option during the
prescribed timeframe, and there is no differentiation among co-located
clients with regard to the waiver of fees for this option.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To
the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will
promote competition by offering co-located clients an additional
connectivity option that will enhance their trading operations and
ultimately bring greater speed and efficiency to trading in the
marketplace. NASDAQ further notes that the proposed option is voluntary
in that the Exchange is not required to offer this connectivity, and
the user is not required to utilize it. The competitiveness of the
offering will determine whether a particular user will adopt the option
or not.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange represented
that its proposal provides co-located clients an option to enhance the
efficiency of their trading through the 1Gb Ultra connectivity and
believes that the benefits gained in the facilitation of trading
activities warrants the waiver of the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange stated it is also providing a waiver of the installation fee
for the 1Gb Ultra connection service to allow the co-located clients
who select this service to receive its benefits immediately. For the
above reasons, the Commission believes waiver of the operative delay is
appropriate and hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-140 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-140. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-140 and should
be submitted on or before December 18, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28420 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21861-21862]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2246-000]

Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Authorization for Continued
Project Operation

    On April 28, 2014 Yuba County Water Agency, licensee for the Yuba
River Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the
Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder.
The Yuba River Project facilities are located on the Yuba River, North
Yuba River, the Middle

Yuba River, and Oregon Creek, in Yuba, Sierra, and Nevada Counties,
California.
    The license for Project No. 2246 was issued for a period ending
March 31, 2016. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2246 is issued to
the licensee for a period effective April 1, 2016 through March 31,
2017 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other
disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new
license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before March
31, 2017, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an
annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed
automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless
the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the licensee, Yuba County Water Agency., is
authorized to continue operation of the Yuba River Project, until such
time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent
license.

    Dated: March 7, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08475 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 14041-14043]
[DOCID:fr20mr06-60]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27260; 812-13055]

Tactical Allocation Services, LLC and Agile Funds, Inc.; Notice
of Application

March 13, 2006.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without
shareholder approval.

Applicants: Tactical Allocation Services, LLC (the ``Adviser'') and
Agile Funds, Inc. (the ``Company'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 19, 2003, and
amended on February 27, 2006. Applicants have agreed to file a final
amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected
in this notice.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on April 7, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 4909 Pearl East Circle,
Suite 300, Boulder, CO 80301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment
Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Company, a Maryland corporation, is registered under the Act
as an open-end management investment company. The Company currently
offers shares of one series, the Agile Multi-Strategy Fund (the
``Multi-Strategy Fund,'' included in the term ``Fund,'' defined below),
and may establish additional series, each consisting of separate
investment objectives, policies, and restrictions (each, a ``Fund'' and
collectively, the ``Funds''). The Adviser, a Colorado limited liability
corporation, serves as the investment adviser to the Multi-Strategy
Fund and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The applicants request that any relief granted pursuant to
the application apply to future series of the Company and any other
existing or future registered open-end management investment company
and its series that: (a) Are advised by the Adviser or any entity
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the
Adviser; (b) are managed in a manner consistent with the
application; and (c) comply with the terms and conditions in the
application (included in the term ``Funds''). The Company is the
only existing registered open-end management investment company that
currently intends to rely on the order. If the name of any Fund
contains the name of a Subadviser (as defined below), the name of
the Adviser or the name of the entity controlling, controlled by or
under common control with the Adviser that serves as the primary
adviser to the Fund will precede the name of the Subadviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Multi-Strategy
Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement between the Company
and the Adviser (the ``Advisory Agreement'') that was approved by the
Company's board of directors (``Board''), including a majority of the
directors who are not ``interested persons,'' as defined in section
2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Company or the Adviser (``Independent
Directors''), and the Multi-Strategy Fund's initial shareholders. The
Advisory Agreement permits the Adviser to enter into investment
advisory agreements (``Subadvisory Agreements'') with subadvisers
(``Subadvisers'') to whom the Adviser may delegate responsibility for
providing investment advice and making investment decisions for a Fund.
Each Subadviser is, and any future Subadviser will be, registered under
the Advisers Act. The Adviser monitors and evaluates the Subadvisers
and recommends to the Board their hiring, termination, and replacement.
The Adviser recommends Subadvisers based on a number of factors
discussed in the application used to evaluate their skills in managing
assets pursuant to particular investment objectives. The Adviser
compensates the Subadvisers out of the fee paid to the Adviser by a
Fund.
    3. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
Board approval, to enter into and materially amend Subadvisory
Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief
will not extend to any Subadviser that is an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Fund or the Adviser, other
than by reason of serving as a Subadviser to one or more of the Funds
(``Affiliated Subadviser''). None of the current Subadvisers is an
Affiliated Subadviser.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except under a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such
matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that the requested relief
meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
    3. Applicants state that the Funds' shareholders rely on the
Adviser to select the Subadvisers best suited to achieve a Fund's
investment objectives. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of
the investor, the role of the Subadvisers is comparable to that of
individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment
advisory firms. Applicants contend that requiring shareholder approval
of each Subadvisory Agreement would impose costs and unnecessary delays
on the Funds, and may preclude the Adviser from acting promptly in a
manner considered advisable by the Board. Applicants also note that the
Advisory Agreement will remain subject to section 15(a) of the Act and
rule 18f-2 under the Act.
    4. Applicants note that the Commission adopted certain fund
governance standards on July 27, 2004.\2\ Applicants agree that each
Fund will comply with the fund governance standards set forth in rule
0-1(a)(7)

under the Act by the compliance date. Applicants also note that the
Commission has proposed rule 15a-5 under the Act and agree that the
requested order will expire on the effective date of rule 15a-5 under
the Act, if adopted.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Investment Company Act Release No. 26520 (July 27,
2004).
    \3\ Investment Company Act Release No. 26230 (Oct. 23, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of
the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by
a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in
the Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase
shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure
contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before
offering shares of that Fund to the public.
    2. Each Fund will disclose in its prospectus the existence,
substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application.
In addition, each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing
the management structure described in the application. The prospectus
will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate
responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee
Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
    3. Each Fund will comply with the fund governance standards set
forth in rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Act by the compliance date for the
rule (``Compliance Date''). Prior to the Compliance Date, a majority of
the Board will be Independent Directors, and the nomination of new or
additional Independent Directors will be at the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Directors.
    4. The Adviser will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any
Affiliated Subadviser without that agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    5. When a Subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Directors, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
Board minutes, that the change is in the best interests of the Fund and
its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest from which
the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an inappropriate
advantage.
    6. Within 90 days of the hiring of a new Subadviser, shareholders
of the affected Fund will be furnished all information about the new
Subadviser that would be contained in a proxy statement. Each Fund will
meet this condition by providing shareholders with an information
statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and
Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
within 90 days of the hiring of a new Subadviser.
    7. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general
management and investment of each Fund's assets, and, subject to review
and approval by the Board, will (a) Set the Fund's overall investment
strategies; (b) evaluate, select, and recommend Subadvisers to manage
all or part of the Fund's assets; (c) when appropriate, allocate and
reallocate a Fund's assets among multiple Subadvisers; (d) monitor and
evaluate the performance of Subadvisers; and (e) implement procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that the Subadvisers comply with each
Fund's investment objectives, policies and restrictions.
    8. No director or officer of the Company, or director, manager or
officer of the Adviser, will own, directly or indirectly (other than
through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by that
director, manager or officer), any interest in a Subadviser, except for
(a) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls,
is controlled by, or is under common control with the Adviser, or (b)
ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of
equity or debt of a publicly-traded company that is either a Subadviser
or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common
control with a Subadviser.
    9. The requested order will expire on the effective date of rule
15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3958 Filed 3-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 66422]
[DOCID:fr28oc10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation
Medical Examiner Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection of information is for the purpose of
obtaining essential information concerning the applicants' professional
and personal qualifications. The FAA uses the information to screen and
select the designees who serve as aviation medical examiners.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0604.
    Title: Aviation Medical Examiner Program.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8520-2.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The collection of information is currently accomplished
by use of FAA Form 8520-2, Aviation Medical Examiner Designation
Application. The information is necessary to determine the
qualifications of those physicians applying to become aviation medical
examiners. The information is also used to develop the AME directories
used by approximately 620,000 airmen who must undergo periodic
examinations by AMEs in order to obtain medical certificates.
    Respondents: Approximately 450 aviation medical examiner
applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 225 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 21, 2010.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-27255 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31348-31350]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14333]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0502; FRL-9980-32--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major
Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of
Air Quality

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of West Virginia. This revision pertains to West Virginia's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0502 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 2017, the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), on behalf of the State
of West Virginia, submitted a revision to its PSD regulations found at
title 45, chapter 14 of the Code of State Rules (CSR) as a revision to
the West Virginia SIP.

I. Background

    WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal included a number of revisions
to West Virginia's PSD regulations under 45CSR14. The revisions were
largely non-substantive and administrative in nature. However, as
discussed in subsequent sections of this notice, WVDEP's SIP submittal
also contained revisions to PSD provisions relating to the regulation
of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Additionally, WVDEP's June 6, 2017
submittal letter references EPA's conditional approval \1\ of two SIP
submittals (June 6, 2012 and July 1, 2014), related to the regulation
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Specifically, the letter
states, ``. . .EPA may subsequently issue a final rule in which West
Virginia's conditional approval of the 2012 and 2014 SIP revisions of
45CSR14 will become final approvals.'' \2\ EPA notes that full and
final approval has already been granted to West Virginia's 2012 and
2014 submittals, and that there are no outstanding issues related to
WVDEP's regulation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). See
81 FR 53008 (August 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 80 FR 36483 (June 25, 2015).
    \2\ See WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal letter, included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a June 3, 2010 final rulemaking action, EPA promulgated
regulations known as ``the Tailoring Rule,'' which phased in permitting
requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA
PSD and title V permitting programs. See 75 FR 31514. For Step 1 of the
Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title V
requirements applied to sources of GHG emissions only if the sources
were subject to PSD or title V ``anyway'' due to their emissions of
non-GHG pollutants. These sources are referred to as ``anyway
sources.'' Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011,
applied the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA to
sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a
permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions. Step 2 also
applied to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD
permit because they increased only GHGs above applicable levels in the
EPA regulations.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air
Regulatory Group (UARG) v. Environmental Protection Agency,\3\ issued a
decision addressing the Tailoring Rule and the application of PSD
permitting requirements to GHG emissions. The Supreme Court said that
the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of
determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD
permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that
PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other
than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The Supreme
Court decision effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG
emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ``anyway sources'' and
invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 134 S.Ct. 2427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that
implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that
implement Step 1 of the

Tailoring Rule.\4\ The amended judgment preserves, without the need for
additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT
requirement to GHG emissions from sources that are required to obtain a
PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs (i.e., the
``anyway'' sources). The D.C. Circuit's judgment vacated the
regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the extent they require a stationary source to
obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable
major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant
emissions increase from a modification.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No.
09-1322, 06/26/20, judgment entered for No. 09-1322 on 04/10/2015.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these court decisions, EPA took final action on
August 19, 2015 to remove the vacated elements from the federal PSD
program. See 80 FR 50199. As discussed further in Section II of this
notice, WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included revisions enacted in
order to make WVDEP's PSD program consistent with the federal program.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included revisions to the definition
of ``subject to regulation'' at subdivision 2.80 of 45-14-2.
Specifically, subdivisions 2.80.e, 2.80.f, and 2.80.g were deleted in
their entirety. These subdivisions were the mechanism through which
WVDEP implemented the Tailoring Rule Step 2 provisions which were
vacated and revised by EPA as a result of the UARG v. EPA decision
discussed in Section I of this notice. WVDEP's revised definition of
``subject to regulation'' is consistent with the federal definition at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v), and ensures that the
preconstruction permitting requirements of WVDEP's PSD program will be
applied to GHG sources in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court
decision in UARG v. EPA. Further, EPA finds that these deletions are in
accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    In addition to the previously discussed revisions, WVDEP's June 6,
2017 submittal included a number of non-substantive, clarifying or
administrative revisions. These include the filing date and effective
date at subdivisions 45-14-1.3 and 45-14-1.4, and the removal of
references to the deleted subdivisions discussed in Section II.A of
this notice. WVDEP provided an underline/strikeout version of 45CSR14
so that all of the revisions can be tracked. A copy of this is included
in the docket for today's action.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve West Virginia's June 6, 2017 SIP
revision to its PSD regulations under 45CSR14. West Virginia's June 6,
2017 SIP revision is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166, CAA section
110(a)(2), and is in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because
it will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA
requirement. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this rulemaking notice. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the West Virginia rules regarding definitions
and permitting requirements discussed in Section II of this preamble.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, relating to the preconstruction
requirements of West Virginia's PSD program, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-14333 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 6780]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03544]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0049; FRL-9989-84-Region 8]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Suncor Energy, Commerce City, Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on a petition to object to a state
operating permit.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Administrator signed an order, dated December 20,
2018, denying the petition dated April 17, 2018, submitted by the
Colorado Latino Forum, Colorado People's Alliance, Cross Community
Coalition, Elyria and Swansea Neighborhood Association, the Sierra
Club, and Western Resource Advocates (Petitioners). The Petition
requested that the EPA object to the Clean Air Act (CAA) title V
operating permit no. 96OPAD120 (Permit) issued by the Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division (the Division) of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment for the Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.,
(Suncor) Commerce City Refinery, Plants 1 and 3 (the Refinery) in Adams
County, Colorado. The Order constitutes a final action of the Petition.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Order, the Petition, and
other supporting information at the EPA Region 8 Office, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view these documents. You may view the
hard copies Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays. The final Order and Petition are also
available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Law, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to
review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to, a title V
operating permit proposed by state permitting authorities. Section
505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to
petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit
within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period
if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be
based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable
specificity during the public comment period provided by the state,
unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise
these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues
arose after this period. Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of
the CAA, a petition for judicial review of those portions of the Order
that deny issues in the Petition may be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the
date this notice appears in the Federal Register.
    The EPA received a petition from the Petitioners dated April 17,
2018, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of the Permit to
Suncor for the Refinery located in Commerce City, Colorado. The
Petition alleges that the Permit fails to ensure compliance with
applicable requirements under the CAA in that: (I) The Division cannot
lawfully establish a federally enforceable hydrogen cyanide (HCN)
emissions limit solely to abet Suncor in avoiding its Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act obligations;
(II) the Division set an unlawful and arbitrarily high HCN emissions
limit; (IIa) the HCN limit is based on an arbitrary estimate, rather
than actual emission data; (IIb) the Division has not demonstrated that
the HCN limit is at least as stringent as federal requirements; (IIc)
Suncor's HCN emissions limit does not protect public health; and (III)
the HCN emissions limit lacks adequate provisions to assure compliance.
    On December 20, 2018, the Administrator issued an Order denying the
Petition. The Order explains the EPA's basis for denying the petition.
    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner
may ask for judicial review of those portions of an order that deny
issues raised in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in
the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later
than April 29, 2019.

    Dated: February 22, 2019.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-03544 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P