[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77125-77128]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0970]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Sausalito Yacht Club's Annual Lighted Boat Parade
and Fireworks Display, Sausalito, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near Sausalito, California in
support of the Sausalito Yacht Club's Annual Lighted Boat Parade and
Fireworks Display. This temporary safety zone is established to ensure
the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated
with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11 a.m. through 8:05 p.m. on
December 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0970 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2011-0970
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking the item in the
Docket ID column. They are also available for inspection or copying at
the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Ensign William Hawn, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable to delay
this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process
would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics
used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and
other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted,
it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during
the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display.

Basis and Purpose

    Sausalito on-the-Waterfront Foundation will sponsor the Sausalito
Yacht Club's Annual Lighted Boat Parade and Fireworks Display on
December 10, 2011 in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay off
of Sausalito, California. This safety zone establishes a temporary
restricted area on the waters 100 feet around the fireworks barge
during the loading of the barge and transit of the barge to the launch
site. During the fireworks display the safety zone will extend to 560
feet around the launch site. The fireworks display is meant for
entertainment purposes. This safety zone is issued to establish a
temporary restricted area on the waters surrounding the fireworks barge
during the loading, transit, and display of the fireworks. This
restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect
spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated
with pyrotechnics. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a
marine event permit for the fireworks display.

Discussion of Rule

    From 11 a.m. until 3 p.m. on December 10, 2011, pyrotechnics will
be loaded onto a barge at Pier 50 near position 37[deg]46'28'' N,
122[deg]23'06'' W (NAD 83). From 5:30 p.m. until 7 p.m. the loaded
barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site located at position
37[deg]51'30.92'' N, 122[deg]28'27.97'' W (NAD 83). The temporary
safety zone will extend 100 feet from the nearest point of the barge
during the loading, transit, and arrival of the pyrotechnics from Pier
50 to position 37[deg]51'30.92'' N, 122[deg]28'27.97'' W (NAD 83). The
fireworks display is scheduled to occur from 7:45 p.m. until 7:55 p.m.
on December 10, 2011, during which the safety zone will extend 560 feet
from the nearest point of the barge at position 37[deg]51'30.92'' N,
122[deg]28'27.97'' W (NAD 83). At 8:05 p.m. on December 10, 2011 the
safety zone shall terminate.
    The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks site until the conclusion
of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or
remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep
spectators and vessels a safe distance from the fireworks display to
ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes and executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum
impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged
in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely around the
area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing
have ample space outside of the effected portion of the areas off San
Francisco, CA to engage in these activities, (iii) this rule will
encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of
time, and (iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this
safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-(888) 734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety
zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T11-458 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-458  Safety zone; Sausalito Yacht Club's Annual Lighted
Boat Parade and Fireworks Display, Sausalito, CA.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone is established for the
specified waters in San Francisco Bay near Sausalito, California. The
temporary safety zone applies to the nearest point of the barge during
the loading, transit, and arrival of the pyrotechnics from Pier 50, San
Francisco, California to the fireworks launch site located at position
37[deg]51'30.92'' N, 122[deg]28'27.97'' W (NAD 83). From 11 a.m. until
3 p.m. on December 10, 2011, pyrotechnics will be loaded onto a barge
at Pier 50 near position 37[deg]46'28'' N, 122[deg]23'06'' W (NAD 83).
From 5:30 p.m. until 7 p.m. the loaded barge will transit from Pier 50
to the launch site located at position 37[deg]51'30.92'' N,
122[deg]28'27.97'' W (NAD 83). The temporary safety zone will extend
100 feet from the nearest point of the barge during the loading,
transit, and arrival of the pyrotechnics from Pier 50 to position
37[deg]51'30.92'' N, 122[deg]28'27.97'' W (NAD 83). From 7:45 p.m.
until 8:05 p.m. on December 10, 2011, the area to which the temporary
safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable
waters around the fireworks site within a radius of 560 feet.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting
the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part
165, subpart C, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative.

    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-16 or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 11 a.m.
through 8:05 p.m. on December 10, 2011.

    Dated: November 21, 2011.
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2011-31707 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 64114-64116]
[DOCID:fr07de09-938]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61074; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-102]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Clarify the Definition of Material Changes in Business Operations
Found in the Membership Rules and to Make a Technical Correction

November 30, 2009.
    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 23, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') 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 Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated the proposed rule
change as constituting a non-controversial rule change under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 1011(g)(2) to clarify the definition
of what Nasdaq considers a ``material change in business operations,''
and to delete a superfluous ``and'' from the rule text.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics and proposed deletions are in brackets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Changes are marked to the rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC found at http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1011. Definitions

    Unless otherwise provided, terms used in the Rule 1000 Series shall
have the meaning as defined in Rule 0120.
    (a)-(f) No change.
    (g) ``material change in business operations''
    The term ``material change in business operations'' includes, but
is not limited to:
    (1) removing or modifying a membership agreement restriction;
    (2)(A) [market making, underwriting, or ]acting as a dealer for the
first time; or
    (B) market making for the first time on Nasdaq; provided, however,
that market making for the first time on Nasdaq will not be considered
a material change in business operations if the member's market making
has previously been approved by FINRA under NASD Rule 1017 or NASDAQ
OMX BX under NASDAQ OMX BX Equity Rule 1017; [and]
    (3) adding business activities that require a higher minimum net
capital under SEC Rule 15c3-1; and
    (4) adding business activities that would cause a proprietary
trading firm no longer to meet the definition of that term contained in
this rule.
    (h)-(o) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is proposing to amend Rule 1011(g)(2) to clarify its
applicability. Rule 1011(g) defines what Nasdaq considers a ``material
change in business operations.'' Pursuant to Rule 1017(a)(5), a member
must file an application for approval of any material change in its
business operations with Nasdaq. Rule 1011(g)(2) includes ``market
making, underwriting, or acting as a dealer for the first time'' within
the definition of ``material change in business operations.'' Rule
1011(g)(2) is intended to require Nasdaq members to undergo an
assessment and obtain approval pursuant to Rule 1017 if they intend to
expand their business operations to include market making,
underwriting, or acting as a dealer. The definition found in Rule
1011(g)(2) could, however, also be interpreted to include engaging in
market making for the first time on a market other than Nasdaq,
notwithstanding that Nasdaq has no regulatory responsibility with
respect to that business activity.
    Nasdaq's Rule 1011(g)(2) is based on NASD Rule 1011(k)(2), and as
such, was drafted by NASD \5\ (now known as ``FINRA'') to be broad in
application given its broad, cross-market regulatory responsibilities.
In adopting Rule 1011(g)(2), however, Nasdaq did not contemplate that
the rule would extend to business operations engaged in on

other markets. Under such an interpretation of the rule, Nasdaq would
be required to approve a member's planned change in business operations
that would be conducted solely on another market. For example, a Nasdaq
member that is not a market maker, yet determines to make markets on a
market other than Nasdaq would, under this interpretation, technically
be required to file an application for approval of the market making
pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 1017, in addition to satisfying the other
market's market making application and approval process. Under this
scenario, even though the business activity is not associated with
Nasdaq, and Nasdaq has no responsibility to oversee the business
activity, Nasdaq would be required to duplicate the efforts of another
market and make an independent determination whether the member could
conduct such business operations on that market. Nasdaq believes that
this would be an erroneous outcome, and would represent unnecessary
duplication of regulatory efforts among self-regulatory organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In late July 2007, NASD changed its name to the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). Accordingly, we use the
term NASD in this filing only (i) when referring to period of time
before the name change, and (ii) with respect to rules that are
still officially designated by FINRA as ``NASD rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq is proposing to separate market making from the other
business activities currently found under Rule 1011(g)(2) by creating
two new subparts to the rule. Proposed new Rule 1011(g)(2)(B) will
address market making and adds new language to make clear that the rule
applies only to engaging in market making for the first time on Nasdaq,
and as a consequence, a Nasdaq member seeking to be designated as a
market maker for the first time on another market would not be required
to follow the Rule 1017 process. Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule
change would not lessen the regulatory oversight of members, since
market making on another market would fall within the jurisdiction and
oversight of that market together with the member's designated
examining authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to
name a single SRO as the designated examining authority to examine
common members for compliance with the financial responsibility
requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission and SRO rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making it clear that market making under Rule 1011(g)(2)(B)
applies only to such activity ``on Nasdaq,'' Nasdaq is concerned that
common members of Nasdaq and FINRA, or of Nasdaq and NASDAQ OMX BX
(``BX''), may misinterpret Rule 1011(g)(2)(B) to require approval
pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 1017 of market making on Nasdaq for the first
time when the same business operation had been previously approved by
FINRA or BX pursuant to their respective Rules 1017. Nasdaq based much
of its membership rules on those of NASD, with minor modifications in
some instances resulting from Nasdaq's exchange status. As noted above,
Nasdaq Rule 1011(g) is virtually identical to NASD Rule 1011(k), except
for the addition of a fourth material change to business operations to
reflect a change that results in a loss of proprietary trading firm
status. Nasdaq Rule 1017 is also substantially similar to NASD Rule
1017. In a similar regard, the membership rules of BX were based upon
the membership rules of Nasdaq, and as a consequence, the membership
rules of BX mirror those of Nasdaq in most respects. Nasdaq notes that
the underlying review pursuant to either Nasdaq Rule 1017 or BX Rule
1017, upon which Nasdaq or BX would reference in making a
determination, is conducted by FINRA.\7\ As such, the process leading
to a prior approval of market making by either FINRA or BX pursuant to
their Rules 1017 would follow the same process as if the Nasdaq Rule
1017 review were conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ When conducting a review on behalf of Nasdaq or BX pursuant
to their respective Rules 1017, FINRA provides a recommendation on
whether to approve the change in business operations or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq is proposing to add new language to Rule 1011(g)(2)(B) that
will make it clear that Nasdaq does not consider market making under
the rule for the first time on Nasdaq to be a material change, if the
market making has already been approved by either FINRA pursuant to
NASD Rule 1017, or alternatively by BX pursuant to BX Rule 1017. Nasdaq
believes that the proposed clarifying language under Nasdaq Rule
1011(g)(2)(B) recognizing prior approvals of market making under the
rules of FINRA and BX will serve to avoid confusion over the
application of the rule in regards to common members. Nasdaq believes
the proposed changes are consistent Nasdaq's [sic] current practice and
will avoid unnecessary regulatory duplication.
    Nasdaq is also proposing to delete references to underwriting from
Rule 1011(g)(2). Underwriting is not conducted on Nasdaq and there is
no circumstance in which a Nasdaq member could act as an underwriter
unless that member was also a member of FINRA, and hence subject to
FINRA's rules and oversight. Nasdaq believes that the [sic] keeping the
term in Rule 1011(g)(2) serves no purpose and could be misleading.
Accordingly, Nasdaq is proposing to delete the term from the rule.
    Nasdaq is also proposing to make a minor technical correction to
the rule by deleting a superfluous ``and'' from the rule text.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to 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. The proposed rule change is
designed to clarify the application of Nasdaq Rule 1011(g)(2) to ensure
its consistent interpretation, and to avoid extending the Rule 1017
approval process to non-Nasdaq business operations conducted on other
exchanges of which the Nasdaq member is also a member. Further, the
proposed rule change makes clear that Nasdaq recognizes FINRA and BX
approvals of material changes in business operations, which is based
upon the similarity of their rules and processes to those of Nasdaq.
Such recognition will serve to avoid unnecessary regulatory duplication
among self-regulatory organizations. The proposed rule change also
makes a minor technical correction to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time

as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest
because it merely clarifies the application of an existing rule to
avoid erroneous interpretation of its applicability, prevents
unnecessary regulatory duplication among self-regulatory organizations,
and makes a minor technical correction to the rule.
    Nasdaq requests that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative
waiting period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\12\ Nasdaq requests
this waiver so that these corrections can be immediately operative,
eliminating any potential confusion caused by the currently unclear
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay set forth in Rule 19b-4(f)(6). The Commission notes the proposal
presents no novel issues and is designed to provide clarity regarding
the application of an existing rule. For these reasons, the Commission
believes it is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay, and hereby grants
such waiver.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-102 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-102. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. 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-2009-102 and should be submitted on or before
December 28, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29041 Filed 12-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 235 (Monday, December 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78849-78851]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26386]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0750; FRL-10017-13]

Pesticide Registration Review; Proposed Interim Decision for
Chlorpyrifos; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
interim registration review decision for chlorpyrifos and opens a 60-
day public comment period on the proposed interim decision, revised
draft human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment for
chlorpyrifos.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification

(ID) number for chlorpyrifos by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room are closed to public visitors
with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The contact identified
in the Table in Unit IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7106; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the contact identified in the Table in Unit IV.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that
each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed a
proposed interim decision for chlorpyrifos.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemical listed in
the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for registration review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed interim registration review decision for chlorpyrifos
and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim
registration review decision, revised draft human health risk
assessment, and ecological risk assessment.

                   Table 1--Proposed Interim Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Registration review case name
            and No.               Docket ID No.     Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorpyrifos, Case 0100.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0  OPPChlorpyrifoslnquir
                                 850.               [email protected] (703)
                                                    347-0206.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review case. For example, the
review opened with a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final
Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the
Preliminary Work Plan.
    The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for
conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of
the pesticide included in the Table in Unit IV, as well as the Agency's
subsequent risk findings. The proposed interim registration review
decision is supported by the rationales included in the risk
assessments.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim
registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to
provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision and risk
assessments. All comments should be submitted using the methods in
ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date.
These comments will become part of the docket for the pesticide
included in the

Table in Unit IV. Comments received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these
late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and may provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the
effect that any comments had on the interim registration review
decision and risk assessments and provide the Agency's response to
significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

(Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.)

    Dated: November 19, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-26386 Filed 12-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16612-16615]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07222]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0028; FRL-9925-47-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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
conditional approval for two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) for the State of West Virginia on July 1, 2014 and June 6,
2012. These revisions pertain to West Virginia's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program and include provisions
for preconstruction permitting requirements for major sources of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) found in West Virginia
regulations. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0028 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0028, David Campbell, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0028. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittals are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE.,
Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The WVDEP submitted two SIP revisions to EPA on June 6, 2012 (the
2012 submittal) and on July 1, 2014 (the 2014 submittal). EPA is acting
on these two submittals as a whole.\1\ A summary of all the changes
made in each of the submittals has been included in the docket for this
action in a document titled, ``Summary of West Virginia PSD Changes.''
These SIP revision requests, if approved, would revise West Virginia's
currently approved PSD program by amending Series 14 under Title 45 of
West Virginia Code of State Rules (45CSR14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA is proposing to act on both SIP submittals in this
notice because each submittal contains necessary procedural
information related to West Virginia's revisions to its PSD
regulations and development of its SIP submittals, which are
required for SIP revisions by 40 CFR parts 51 and 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 16, 2008, EPA promulgated a rule to implement the 1997
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
including changes to the New Source Review (NSR) program (the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule). See 73 FR 28321. The

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program requirements to
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment
areas.\2\ The 2008 NSR PM2.5 rule: (1) Required NSR permits
to address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants;
(2) established significant emission rates for direct PM2.5
and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX)); (3) established PM2.5
emission offsets; and (4) required states to account for gases that
condense to form particles (condensables) in PM2.5 emission
limits.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The PSD permitting program is the NSR permit program in
areas attaining a particular NAAQS.
    \3\ On October 25, 2012, EPA took final action to amend the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' promulgated in the 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule regarding the particulate matter (PM)
condensable provision at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and
52.21(b)(50)(i). See 77 FR 65107. The rulemaking removed the
inadvertent requirement in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that
the measurement of condensable ``particulate matter emissions'' be
included as part of the measurement and regulation of ``particulate
matter emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (as well as the more general
PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule, the 2007 ``Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule) \4\), was the subject of litigation before the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (hereafter,
NRDC v. EPA).\5\ On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA
both the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule. The court found that in both rules EPA erred in
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to the
general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of
the CAA (subpart 1), rather than pursuant to the additional
implementation provisions specific to particulate matter in subpart 4
of part D of title I (subpart 4).\6\ As a result, the D.C. Circuit
remanded both rules and instructed EPA ``to re-promulgate these rules
pursuant to subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.'' Although the D.C.
Circuit declined to establish a deadline for EPA's response, EPA
intends to respond promptly to the court's remand and to promulgate new
generally applicable implementation regulations for the
PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of subpart
4. In the interim, however, states and EPA still need to proceed with
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and
effective fashion in order to meet statutory obligations under the CAA
and to assure the protection of public health intended by those NAAQS.
In a June 2, 2014 final rulemaking entitled ``Identification of
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; Final Rule,'' (79 FR 31566), EPA
identified the classification status under subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007).
    \5\ 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
    \6\ The court's opinion did not specifically address the point
that implementation under subpart 4 requirements would still require
consideration of subpart 1 requirements, to the extent that subpart
4 did not override subpart 1. EPA assumes that the court presumed
that EPA would address this issue of potential overlap between
subpart 1 and subpart 4 requirements in subsequent actions.
    \7\ That June 2, 2014 rulemaking (79 FR 31566) also established
a December 31, 2014 deadline for the submission of any additional
attainment related SIP elements that may be needed to meet the
applicable requirements of subpart 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment
areas, EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the NRDC v. EPA
opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD
permitting requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Rule in order to comply with the D.C. Circuit's decision. This proposed
rulemaking addresses West Virginia's PSD regulations. Thus, EPA has
evaluated the regulations with applicable PSD requirements in the CAA,
its implementing regulations, and the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.
    The CAA's PSD provisions also establish maximum allowable increases
over baseline concentrations--also known as ``increments''--for certain
pollutants. EPA has the task of promulgating regulations to prevent the
significant deterioration of air quality that would result from the
emissions of pollutants EPA began regulating after Congress enacted the
PSD provisions in the CAA, which includes PM2.5. The PSD
provisions establish preconstruction review and permitting of new or
modified sources of air pollution. In 2007, EPA proposed a rule
establishing increments for PM2.5 and also proposed two
screening tools that would exempt permit applicants from some air
quality analysis and monitoring required for PSD: Significant impact
levels (SILs) and significant monitoring concentration (SMC). See 72 FR
54112 (September 21, 2007). In our October 20, 2010 final rule (the
PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule), EPA set values for both
SILs and SMC for PM2.5. See 75 FR 64864.
    The Sierra Club challenged EPA's authority to implement
PM2.5 SILs and SMC for PSD purposes as promulgated in the
PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
705 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). On January 22, 2013, the D.C. Circuit
granted a request from EPA to vacate and remand to the Agency the
portions of the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule
addressing the SILs for PM2.5 (found in paragraph (k)(2) in
40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21), except for the parts codifying the
PM2.5 SILs at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), so that the EPA could
voluntarily correct an error in the provisions. Id. at 463-66. The D.C.
Circuit also vacated parts of the PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule
establishing the PM2.5 SMC, finding that the Agency had
exceeded its statutory authority with respect to these provisions. Id.
at 469.
    In response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA took final action
on December 9, 2013 to remove the SIL provisions from the Federal PSD
regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 and to revise the SMC for PM2.5
to zero micrograms per cubic meter. See 78 FR 73698. Because the D.C.
Circuit vacated the SMC provisions in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), EPA revised the existing concentration for the
PM2.5 SMC listed in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per cubic meter. EPA did not
entirely remove PM2.5 as a listed pollutant in the SMC
provisions because to do so might lead to the issuance of permits that
contradict the holding of the D.C. Circuit as to the statutory
monitoring requirements. Id. (providing EPA's explanation for including
the zero micrograms per cubic meter SMC).
    On May 9, 2013, EPA had disapproved a narrow portion of a SIP
revision submitted by the State of West Virginia on August 31, 2011 for
revising West Virginia's PSD requirements in 45 CSR14 because the
submittal did not satisfy the Federal requirement for inclusion of
condensable emissions of PM (condensables) within the definition of
``regulated new source review (NSR) pollutant'' (at 45CSR14 section
2.66) for PM2.5 and PM emissions less than or equal to ten
micrometers in diameter (PM10).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 78 FR 27062 (May 9, 2013). The limited disapproval of
the narrow portion of the August 31, 2011 SIP provision (concerning
45CSR14 section 2.66) is discussed in 78 FR 27062 and in 40 CFR
52.2522(j)(1) specifically.

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

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revision

    Specifically, the revisions submitted by WVDEP on July 1, 2014 and
June 6, 2012 involve amendments to 45CSR14 (Permits for Construction
and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration) based on the Federal regulatory actions
discussed above in section I. A summary of the changes made in the 2012
and 2014 submittals are available in the docket in a document titled,
``Summary of West Virginia NSR Changes.'' Generally, the revisions in
the 2012 submittal were submitted to incorporate provisions related to
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The 2014 submittal revises certain
subdivisions of the 2012 submittal as shown in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Rule 45CSR14 subdivision               Description of change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.66.a.1..........................  Added PM condensable emissions to
                                     definition of ``regulated NSR
                                     pollutant''.
2.66.a.2..........................  Added language identifying
                                     precursors to NAAQS pollutants to
                                     the definition of ``regulated NSR
                                     pollutant''.
16.7.c............................  Deleted 24-hour de minimis air
                                     quality impact concentration value
                                     for PM2.5 (aka SMC for PM2.5).
16.1.a & b........................  Added provision exempting
                                     requirements of 9.1 for stationary
                                     sources based on completeness date
                                     of permit applications.
9.2...............................  Significant Impact Levels. Deleted
                                     this provision in its entirety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the 2014 submittal adds PM condensable emissions to the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' and deletes SILs and SMC for
PM2.5 in the 45CSR14 provisions submitted for SIP approval.

B. EPA Analysis

    EPA finds the revisions to 45CSR14 contained in the 2012 submittal
and the 2014 submittal which were submitted by WVDEP for approval
mirror the PSD requirements of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule with
certain exceptions described in the next paragraph. The 2014 submittal
addresses and corrects the deficiency identified in EPA's May 9, 2013
disapproval (78 FR 27062) by adding language to the provision at
45CSR14 section 2.66.a.1 which now includes PM condensable emissions in
the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' Thus, EPA finds West
Virginia has addressed the deficiency noted in our limited disapproval
in 78 FR 27062.
    However, while the 2014 submittal appropriately removes SILs for
PM2.5 consistent with the D.C. Circuit's Sierra Club v. EPA
decision and our final December 9, 2013 rulemaking (78 FR 73698), West
Virginia's PSD provision at 45CSR14-16.7.c (included in the 2014
submittal) does not include a SMC value of zero micrograms per cubic
meter for PM2.5 consistent with the D.C. Circuit's Sierra
Club v. EPA decision and our December 9, 2013 rulemaking (78 FR 73698)
which addressed the D.C. Circuit's vacature of the SMC provisions in 40
CFR parts 51 and 52 for PM2.5. Therefore, West Virginia's
PSD regulation, 45CSR14, does not fully meet the requirements for PSD
programs as set forth in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, the D.C.
Circuit's decision on SILs and SMC in Sierra Club v. EPA, and in EPA's
December 9, 2013 rulemaking addressing that decision for SILs and SMC.
    However, on January 20, 2015, West Virginia committed to submitting
an additional SIP revision with a revised PSD regulation at 45CSR14-
16.7.c which will incorporate a SMC value of zero micrograms per cubic
meter for PM2.5 to address this discrepancy. West Virginia
committed to submitting this SIP revision no later than one year
following the effective date of the final rulemaking notice for
conditional approval of the 2012 and the 2014 submittals so that EPA
can conditionally approve the 2012 and 2014 submittals.\9\ See CAA
section 110(k)(4). With the exception of the absence of the SMC value
of zero micrograms per cubic meter for PM2.5 which WVDEP has
committed to address, EPA finds the 2012 and 2014 submittals meet
applicable requirements for a PSD permitting program in the CAA, its
implementing regulations, and the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. Any comments submitted in a timely manner will be considered
before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ West Virginia's letter from the Secretary of WVDEP
committing to submit a revised provision in 45CSR14 to address the
SMC for PM2.5 is available in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0028) and available online at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing conditional approval of these West Virginia SIP
revisions, the 2012 and 2014 submittals, because West Virginia is
committing to submit an additional SIP revision addressing the
deficiency identified by EPA regarding the deletion of the
PM2.5 SMC within one year of the date of EPA's final
conditional approval and because the submittals otherwise meet CAA
requirements as discussed in this proposed rulemaking. Once EPA has
determined that West Virginia has satisfied this condition, the
conditional approval of the 2012 and 2014 submittals will become a full
approval. Should West Virginia fail to meet the condition specified
above, the conditional approval of the 2012 and 2014 submittals will
convert to a disapproval pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4).
    The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the
requirement under CAA section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the
Administrator promulgates such FIP. EPA has determined that West
Virginia's 2014 submittal has rectified the deficiency regarding
including condensables in the definition of regulated NSR pollutant
noted in our limited disapproval in 78 FR 27062. Therefore, upon final
approval of the 2014 submittal, the EPA is no longer required to
promulgate a FIP to address the issue of PM condensables in the
definition of regulated NSR pollutant for West Virginia's PSD permit
program, and our narrow disapproval of the August 31, 2011 PSD SIP (for
failure to include condensables in definition of regulated NSR
pollutant) will become a full approval. However, EPA is proposing
conditional approval for the 2012 and 2014 submittals due to West
Virginia's lack of a PM2.5 SMC with the value of zero
micrograms per cubic meter.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this 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, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the WV regulations at 45CSR14 regarding the Prevention of
Significant

deterioration permitting requirements as discussed in section III of
this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.com and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, relating to 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, Incorporation by
reference, Carbon monoxide, 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: March 12, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-07222 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


32. In Sec.  106.110, remove paragraphs (d) and (e).

Sec.  106.200  [Amended]

0
33. Amend Sec.  106.200 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(6) introductory text, remove the word ``part'', and
add, in its place, the word ``subchapter''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(12), remove the words ``Sec.  106.260(c) of this
part'', and add, in their place, the words ``Sec.  101.535 of this
subchapter''.
0
34. Add Sec.  106.258 to read as follows:

Sec.  106.258  Risk Group classifications for OCS facilities.

    For purposes of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
requirements of this subchapter, all Outer Continental Shelf facilities
subject to this part are classified in Risk Group B.
0
35. Amend Sec.  106.260 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (c) and (d);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (e) through (h) as paragraphs (c) through
(f), respectively;
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (d)(1);
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(3), remove the word ``or'';
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(4), following the words
``providing boat patrols'', remove the symbol ``.'' and add, in its
place, the word ``; or'';
0
f. Add paragraph (e)(5);
0
g. In newly redesignated paragraph (f)(7), remove the word ``or'';
0
h. In newly redesignated paragraph (f)(8), following the words ``search
of the OCS facility'', remove the symbol ``.'' and add, in its place,
the word ``; or''; and
0
i. Add paragraph (f)(9).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  106.260  Security measures for access control.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Implement TWIC as set out in Sec.  101.525 of this subchapter
in

accordance with the OCS facility's assigned Risk Group, as set out in
Sec.  106.258 of this part.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Implementing additional TWIC requirements, as required by Sec.
106.258 of this part and Sec.  101.525 of this subchapter.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (9) Implementing additional TWIC requirements, as required by Sec.
106.258 of this part and Sec.  101.525 of this subchapter.

Sec.  106.262  [Amended]

0
36. In Sec.  106.262(a), remove the last sentence.
0
37. Amend Sec.  106.405 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(10); and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the last sentence.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  106.405  Format of the Facility Security Plan (FSP).

    (a) * * *
    (10) Security measures for access control, including the OCS
facility's TWIC program;
* * * * *

    Dated: March 13, 2013.
Admiral Robert J. Papp Jr.,
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-06182 Filed 3-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41441-41442]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2014-F-0232]

Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals;
Chromium Propionate; Extension of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; extension of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the final rule, published in the Federal Register of
June 3, 2016, amending the regulations for food additives permitted in
feed and drinking water of animals to provide for the safe use of
chromium propionate as a source of chromium in broiler chicken feed.
This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by Kemin
Industries, Inc. We are taking this action due to maintenance on the
Federal eRulemaking portal from July 1 through July 5, 2016.

DATES: The FDA confirms the June 3, 2016, effective date of the final
rule that published on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35610). The comment period
for the final rule is extended. Submit either electronic or written
comments by July 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-F-0232 for ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking
Water of Animals; Chromium Propionate.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville,
MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 3, 2016 (81
FR 35610), FDA amended the regulations for food additives permitted in
feed and drinking water of animals to provide for the safe use of
chromium propionate as a source of chromium in broiler chicken feed.
This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by Kemin
Industries, Inc. (Kemin). FDA found no significant environmental impact
of this action based on its evaluation of evidence contained in an
environmental assessment submitted by Kemin.
    Interested persons were originally given until July 5, 2016, to
submit comments or written objections and a request for a hearing.
    From July 1 through July 5, 2016, the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
http://www.regulations.gov, is undergoing maintenance. Therefore, we
are extending the comment period for the regulations permitting the use
of chromium propionate as a source of

chromium in broiler chicken feed and for FDA's finding of no
significant environmental impact. The extended comment period will
close on July 19, 2016.

    Dated: June 20, 2016.
Tracey Forfa,
Acting Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2016-14932 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 40333-40334]
[DOCID:fr14jy08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-429-000]

Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Application

July 7, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 20, 2008, Kern River Gas Transmission
Company (Kern River), 2755 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 300, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84121, filed an abbreviated application in the above
referenced docket pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), and Subpart 157 of the Commission's regulations, for an order
granting (1) a certificate of public convenience and necessity
authorizing Kern River to construct and/or modify, and operate the
facilities needed to expand its year-round, firm transportation
capacity from Opal receipt meter in Lincoln County, Wyoming, to the
Daggett-PG&E and Kramer Junction delivery meters in San Bernardino
County, California, by 145,000 Dth/d; (2) an increase to its
certificate pipeline maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) from
1,200 psig to 1,333 psig, and an increase to its certificated
compressor and meter station MAOP from 1,250 psig to 1,350 psig; (3)
predetermination that the costs and fuel usage associated with Kern
River's 2010 Expansion may be rolled into Kern River's 2003 Expansion
for transportation rate and fuel reimbursement purposes; (4) approval
of regulatory asset/liability accounting for differences between book
and regulatory depreciation resulting from use of Kern River's
levelized rate design; (5) approval of Kern River's proposed accounting
treatment for contributions in aid of construction integral to the 2010
Expansion design; and, (6) acceptance of the pro forma tariff sheets
included in Exhibit P to the application, all as more fully set forth
in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The proposed new facilities, modifications to existing facilities
and the requested MAOP uprate include (1) installation of a new 20,500
ISO-rated horsepower turbine driven compressor at the Muddy Creek
compressor station B Plant in Lincoln County, Wyoming; (2) compressor
restaging at the Muddy Creek and Painter compressor stations; and (3)
installation of additional measurement equipment at the Opal and Kramer
Junction meter stations. The proposed additions, modifications and
uprates will add a net 20,500 ISO-rated horsepower to the Kern River
system, increasing its summer design capacity from 1,731,126 Dth/d to
1,876,126 Dth/d. The estimated total cost of the proposed 2010
Expansion is $62.1 million, which will be financed with internally
generated funds. Kern River proposes to charge 2010 Expansion shippers
the transportation rates and fuel reimbursement charges applicable to
Kern River's 2003 Expansion.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Billie
L. Tolman, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Kern River Gas Transmission
Company, 2755 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, Utah
84121, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public

Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on
the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: July 28, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15884 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P