[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17085-17088]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08162]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0523; FRL-9992-53-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; FL; Redesignation of
the Nassau County 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area to
Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In a letter dated June 7, 2018, the State of Florida, through
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), submitted a
request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the Nassau County sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Nassau County Area'' or ``Area'') to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) and to approve an accompanying state
implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for
the Area. The submittal was received by EPA on June 12, 2018. EPA is
taking final action to determine that the Nassau County Area attained
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date
of October 4, 2018; to approve the SIP revision containing the State's
plan for maintaining attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard and to incorporate the maintenance plan into the SIP; and to
redesignate the Nassau County Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective May 24, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0523. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS,
establishing a new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Under EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is met at a
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile
of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to
75 ppb (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
T). See 40 CFR 50.17. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-
year period must meet a data completeness requirement. A year meets
data completeness requirements when all four quarters are complete, and
a quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days for
each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete data if 75
percent of the hourly concentration values, including state-flagged
data affected by exceptional events which have been approved for
exclusion by the Administrator, are reported.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)
the NAAQS. EPA designated the Nassau County Area as nonattainment for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, effective on October 4, 2013,
using 2009-2011 complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air
quality data. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). The Area is comprised
of the portion of Nassau County encompassing the circular boundary with
the center being Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Easting 455530
meters, UTM Northing 3391737 meters, UTM zone 17, using the NAD83 datum
(the location of the ambient SO2 monitor in the Area) and
the radius being 2.4 kilometers (km). Under the CAA, nonattainment
areas must attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but not
later than five years after the October 4, 2013, effective date of the
designation. See CAA section 192(a). Therefore, the Nassau County
Area's applicable attainment date was no later than October 4, 2018.
    EPA's 2010 SO2 nonattainment designation for the Area
triggered an obligation for Florida to develop a nonattainment SIP
revision addressing certain requirements under title I, part D, subpart
1 (hereinafter ``Subpart 1''), and to submit that SIP revision to EPA

in accordance with the deadlines in title I, part D, subpart 5
(hereinafter ``Subpart 5''). Subpart 1 contains the general
requirements for nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants, including
requirements to develop a SIP that provides for the implementation of
reasonably available control measures (RACM), requires reasonable
further progress (RFP), includes base-year and attainment-year
emissions inventories, a SIP-approved nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) permitting program that accounts for growth in the area,
enforceable emission limitations and other such control measures, and
provides for the implementation of contingency measures. This SIP
revision was due within 18 months following the October 4, 2013,
effective date of designation (i.e., April 4, 2015). See CAA section
191(a). Florida submitted a nonattainment SIP revision to EPA on April
3, 2015.
    Florida's nonattainment SIP revision included permit conditions
prescribing controls and emissions limits to reduce SO2
emissions at the only point source of SO2 emissions within
the Nassau County Area--Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC Fernandina
Beach Sulfite Pulp Mill (Rayonier)--and at the largest source of
SO2 within 25 km outside of the nonattainment area--WestRock
CP, LLC Fernandina Beach Mill (WestRock). These measures were fully
implemented at Rayonier during the second quarter of 2014 and at
WestRock in December 2017. Florida's nonattainment SIP revision also
included a modeled attainment demonstration for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS based on the permit conditions at Rayonier and WestRock provided
therein, a base year emissions inventory, RACM/Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT), an RFP plan, NNSR permitting program, and
contingency measures for the Nassau County Area, thereby satisfying the
required nonattainment planning requirements mentioned above for the
Nassau County Area. On July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30749), EPA approved
Florida's April 3, 2015, SO2 nonattainment SIP revision,
making the aforementioned permit conditions at Rayonier and WestRock
permanent and enforceable.
    On June 7, 2018, Florida submitted a request to EPA for
redesignation of the Nassau County Area to attainment for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS and a related SIP revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) published on February 15, 2019 (84 FR 4411), EPA proposed to
determine that the Area attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
by its attainment date of October 4, 2018; to approve the maintenance
plan for the Area as meeting the maintenance plan requirements of CAA
section 175A and to incorporate it into the SIP; and to approve
Florida's request for redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as meeting the
redesignation requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). No adverse
comments were received on the February 15, 2019, proposed rulemaking.
The details of Florida's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions
are further explained in the NPRM, including the modeled attainment
demonstration and quality-assured, complete, and certified 2015-2017
ambient air monitoring data used to determine attainment with the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

II. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of the Nassau County Area, found at 40 CFR 81.310, from nonattainment
to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Approval of
Florida's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan into the SIP
for maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Nassau
County Area as described in the NPRM. The maintenance plan also
establishes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of
potential violations.
    EPA is finalizing the redesignation of the Nassau County Area to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and finalizing the
approval of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The Area is required to implement the CAA section
175A maintenance plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that is
being approved in today's action and the prevention of significant
deterioration program for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
approved maintenance plan can only be revised if the revision meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) and, if applicable, CAA section 193.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final actions regarding Florida's request to
redesignate the Nassau County Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and associated SIP revision. EPA is determining
that the Nassau County Area attained the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. EPA is also
approving the SIP revision containing the State's plan for maintaining
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard and incorporating
the maintenance plan into the SIP. Finally, EPA is approving Florida's
redesignation request and redesignating the Nassau County Area to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. As mentioned
above, approval of the redesignation request changes the official
designation of the Nassau County Area from nonattainment to attainment,
as found in 40 CFR part 81.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 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, these actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because redesignations and SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose information collection burdens under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);

     Do not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    These actions are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 24, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: April 11, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by adding an entry for ``2010 1-hour
SO2 Maintenance Plan for the Nassau Area'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                     EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            State
               Provision                  effective   EPA approval           Federal Register, notice                         Explanation
                                            date          date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
2010 1-hour SO2 Maintenance Plan for       6/7/2018     4/24/2019   [Insert citation of publication].........  .........................................
 the Nassau Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.310, the table entitled ``Florida-2010 Sulfur Dioxide
NAAQS (Primary)'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Nassau County,
FL'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.310  Florida.

* * * * *

                   Florida--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                [Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation
         Designated area         ---------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Nassau County, FL \2\...........       4/24/2019  Attainment.
    Nassau County (part):
        That portion of Nassau
         County encompassing the
         circular boundary with
         the center being UTM
         Easting 455530 meters,
         UTM Northing 3391737
         meters, UTM zone 17,
         using the NAD83 datum
         (the location of the
         ambient SO2 monitor)
         and the radius being
         2.4 kilometers.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is 4/9/2018, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless
  otherwise specified.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-08162 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32686-32688]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12167]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 275

[Release No. IA-4388; File No. S7-08-16]

Performance-Based Investment Advisory Fees

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of intent to issue order.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
intends to issue an order that would adjust for inflation, as
appropriate, dollar amount thresholds in the rule under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 that permits investment advisers to charge
performance-based fees to ``qualified clients.'' Under that rule, an
investment adviser may charge performance-based fees if a ``qualified
client'' has a certain minimum net worth or minimum dollar amount of
assets under the management of the adviser. The Commission's order
would increase, to reflect inflation, the minimum net worth that a
``qualified client'' must have under the rule. The order would not
increase the minimum dollar amount of assets under management.

DATES: Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order adjusting the
dollar amount tests specified in the definition of ``qualified client''
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission's Office of the
Secretary by 5:30 p.m. on June 13, 2016. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Hollander Wagner, Senior
Counsel, Investment Company Rulemaking Office, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission intends to issue an order
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'' or
``Act'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80b. Unless otherwise noted, all references to
statutory sections are to the Investment Advisers Act, and all
references to rules under the Investment Advisers Act, including
rule 205-3, are to Title 17, Part 275 of the Code of Federal
Regulations [17 CFR 275].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act generally prohibits an
investment adviser from entering into, extending, renewing, or
performing any investment advisory contract that provides for
compensation to the adviser based on a share of capital gains on, or
capital appreciation of, the funds of a client.\2\ Congress prohibited
these compensation arrangements (also known as performance compensation
or performance fees) in 1940 to protect advisory clients from
arrangements that Congress believed might encourage advisers to take
undue risks with client funds to increase advisory fees.\3\ In 1970,
Congress provided an exception from the prohibition for advisory
contracts relating to the investment of assets in excess of
$1,000,000,\4\ if an appropriate ``fulcrum fee'' is used.\5\ Congress
subsequently authorized the Commission to exempt, by rule or order, any
advisory contract from the performance fee prohibition if the contract
is with persons who the

Commission determines do not need the protections of that
prohibition.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-5(a)(1).
    \3\ H.R. Rep. No. 2639, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 29 (1940).
Performance fees were characterized as ``heads I win, tails you
lose'' arrangements in which the adviser had everything to gain if
successful and little, if anything, to lose if not. S. Rep No. 1775,
76th Cong., 3d Sess. 22 (1940).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-5(b)(2). Trusts, governmental plans,
collective trust funds, and separate accounts referred to in section
3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company
Act'') [15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(11)] are not eligible for this exception
from the performance fee prohibition under section 205(b)(2)(B) of
the Advisers Act.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-5(b). A fulcrum fee generally involves
averaging the adviser's fee over a specified period and increasing
or decreasing the fee proportionately with the investment
performance of the company or fund in relation to the investment
record of an appropriate index of securities prices. See rule 205-2
under the Advisers Act; Adoption of Rule 205-2 under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, As Amended, Definition of ``Specified Period''
Over Which Asset Value of Company or Fund Under Management is
Averaged, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 347 (Nov. 10, 1972)
[37 FR 24895 (Nov. 23, 1972)].
     In 1980, Congress added another exception to the prohibition
against charging performance fees, for contracts involving business
development companies under certain conditions. See section
205(b)(3) of the Advisers Act.
    \6\ Section 205(e) of the Advisers Act. Section 205(e) of the
Advisers Act authorizes the Commission to exempt conditionally or
unconditionally from the performance fee prohibition advisory
contracts with persons who the Commission determines do not need its
protections. Section 205(e) provides that the Commission may
determine that persons do not need the protections of section
205(a)(1) on the basis of such factors as ``financial
sophistication, net worth, knowledge of and experience in financial
matters, amount of assets under management, relationship with a
registered investment adviser, and such other factors as the
Commission determines are consistent with [section 205].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission adopted rule 205-3 in 1985 to exempt an investment
adviser from the prohibition against charging a client performance fees
in certain circumstances.\7\ The rule, when adopted, allowed an adviser
to charge performance fees if the client had at least $500,000 under
management with the adviser immediately after entering into the
advisory contract (``assets-under-management test'') or if the adviser
reasonably believed, immediately prior to entering into the advisory
contract, that the client had a net worth of more than $1,000,000 at
the time the contract was entered into (``net worth test''). The
Commission stated that these standards would limit the availability of
the exemption to clients who are financially experienced and able to
bear the risks of performance fee arrangements.\8\ In 1998, the
Commission amended rule 205-3 to, among other things, change the dollar
amounts of the assets-under-management test and net worth test to
adjust for the effects of inflation since 1985.\9\ The Commission
revised the former from $500,000 to $750,000, and the latter from
$1,000,000 to $1,500,000.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Exemption To Allow Registered Investment Advisers To Charge
Fees Based Upon a Share of Capital Gains Upon or Capital
Appreciation of a Client's Account, Investment Advisers Act Release
No. 996 (Nov. 14, 1985) [50 FR 48556 (Nov. 26, 1985)] (``1985
Adopting Release''). The exemption applies to the entrance into,
performance, renewal, and extension of advisory contracts. See rule
205-3(a).
    \8\ See 1985 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at Sections I.C and
II.B. The rule also imposed other conditions, including specific
disclosure requirements and restrictions on calculation of
performance fees. See id. at Sections II.C-E.
    \9\ See Exemption To Allow Investment Advisers To Charge Fees
Based Upon a Share of Capital Gains Upon or Capital Appreciation of
a Client's Account, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1731 (July
15, 1998) [63 FR 39022 (July 21, 1998)].
    \10\ See id. at Section II.B.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(``Dodd-Frank Act'') \11\ amended section 205(e) of the Advisers Act to
provide that, by July 21, 2011 and every five years thereafter, the
Commission shall adjust for inflation the dollar amount thresholds
included in rules issued under section 205(e), rounded to the nearest
$100,000.\12\ In May 2011, the Commission published a release (the
``May 2011 Release'') that included a notice of intent to issue an
order revising the dollar amount thresholds of the assets-under-
management test (from $750,000 to $1,000,000) and the net worth test
(from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000).\13\ The Commission issued an order to
revise the dollar amount thresholds of the assets-under-management and
net worth tests, as described above, on July 12, 2011.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \12\ See section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act (requiring the
Commission to issue an order every five years revising dollar amount
thresholds in a rule that exempts a person or transaction from
section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act if the dollar amount threshold
was a factor in the Commission's determination that the persons do
not need the protections of that section).
    \13\ See Investment Adviser Performance Compensation, Investment
Advisers Act Release No. 3198 (May 10, 2011) [76 FR 27959 (May 13,
2011)].
    \14\ See Order Approving Adjustment for Inflation of the Dollar
Amount Tests in Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of
1940, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3236 (July 12, 2011) [76
FR 41838 (July 15, 2011)] (``2011 Order''). The 2011 Order was
effective as of September 19, 2011. Id. The 2011 Order applies to
contractual relationships entered into on or after the effective
date and does not apply retroactively to contractual relationships
previously in existence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The May 2011 Release also proposed amendments to rule 205-3
providing, among other things, that the Commission would issue an order
every five years in the future adjusting the rule's dollar amount
thresholds for inflation.\15\ On February 15, 2012, the Commission
adopted these proposed amendments, which amended rule 205-3 in three
ways to carry out the inflation adjustment of the rule's dollar amount
thresholds.\16\ First, the amendments revised the dollar amount
thresholds in rule 205-3, in order to codify the order the Commission
issued on July 12, 2011.\17\ Second, the amendments added to rule 205-
3, as proposed, a new paragraph stating that the Commission will issue
an order on or about May 1, 2016, and approximately every five years
thereafter, adjusting for inflation the dollar amount thresholds of the
rule's assets-under-management and net worth tests.\18\ Finally, the
amendments to rule 205-3 specify the price index on which future
inflation adjustments will be based--the Personal Consumption
Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (``PCE Index''), which is published
by the United States Department of Commerce.\19\ The PCE Index is an
indicator of inflation in the personal sector of the U.S. economy \20\
and is used in other provisions of the federal securities laws,
including the determination of whether a person meets a specific net
worth minimum in Regulation R under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
[15 U.S.C. 78a].\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See May 2011 Release, supra note 13.
    \16\ See Investment Adviser Performance Compensation, Investment
Advisers Act Release No. 3372 (Feb. 15, 2012) [77 FR 10358 (Feb. 22,
2012)].
    \17\ See rule 205-3(d)(1)(i) and (ii).
    \18\ See rule 205-3(e).
    \19\ See rule 205-3(e)(1).
    \20\ See, e.g., Jo Craven McGinty, CPI vs. PCE: Untangling the
Alphabet Soup of Inflation Gauges, The Wall Street Journal (Mar. 20,
2015), available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/cpi-vs-pce-untangling-the-alphabet-soup-of-inflation-gauges-1426867398; Clinton
P. McCully, Brian C. Moyer, and Kenneth J. Stewart, ``Comparing the
Consumer Price Index and the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price
Index,'' Survey of Current Business (Nov. 2007) at 26 n.1 (PCE Index
measures changes in ``prices paid for goods and services by the
personal sector in the U.S. national income and product accounts''
and is primarily used for macroeconomic analysis and forecasting).
    \21\ See Definitions of Terms and Exemptions Relating to the
``Broker'' Exceptions for Banks, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
56501 (Sept. 24, 2007) [72 FR 56514 (Oct. 3, 2007)] (adopting
periodic inflation adjustments to the fixed-dollar thresholds for
both ``institutional customers'' and ``high net worth customers''
under Rule 701 of Regulation R); see also Amendments to Form ADV,
Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3060 (July 28, 2010) [75 FR
49234 (Aug. 12, 2010)] (increasing for inflation the threshold
amount for prepayment of advisory fees that triggers an adviser's
duty to provide clients with an audited balance sheet and the dollar
threshold triggering the exception to the delivery of brochures to
advisory clients receiving only impersonal advice).
     The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the use of the PCE Index to
calculate inflation adjustments for the cash limit protection of
each investor under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.
See section 929H(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Order Adjusting Dollar Amount Tests

    Pursuant to section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act and rule 205-3(e),
today we are providing notice \22\ that the Commission intends to issue
an order making the required inflation adjustment to the assets-under-
management test and the net worth test in the definition of ``qualified
client'' in rule 205-3. As discussed above, section 418 of the Dodd-
Frank Act and rule 205-3(e) require that we adjust the dollar amount
thresholds of the rule by order on or about May 1, 2016 and every five
years thereafter.\23\ We intend to issue an order that would maintain
the dollar amount of the assets-under-management test at $1,000,000,
and would increase the dollar amount of the net worth test from
$2,000,000 to

$2,100,000. As required under rule 205-3, both dollar amounts would
take into account the effects of inflation by reference to historic and
current levels of the PCE Index. While the dollar amount of the assets-
under-management test would not change, because the amount of the
Commission's inflation adjustment calculation is smaller than the
rounding amount specified under rule 205-3, the dollar amount of the
net worth test would be adjusted as a result of the Commission's
inflation adjustment calculation effected pursuant to the rule.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See section 211(c) of the Advisers Act (requiring the
Commission to provide appropriate notice of and opportunity for
hearing for orders issued under the Advisers Act).
    \23\ See supra notes 12 and 18 and accompanying text.
    \24\ Specifically, rule 205-3(e) provides that the adjusted
dollar amounts shall be computed by: (1) Dividing the year-end value
of the PCE Index (or any successor index thereto) for the calendar
year preceding the calendar year in which the order is being issued
(in this case, 2015), by the year-end value of the PCE Index (or
successor) for the calendar year 1997 (such quotient, the
``Adjustment Percentage''); (2) for the assets-under-management
test, multiplying $750,000 by the Adjustment Percentage and rounding
the product to the nearest multiple of $100,000; and (3) for the net
worth test, multiplying $1,500,000 by the Adjustment Percentage and
rounding the product to the nearest multiple of $100,000.As of April
8, 2016, the end-of-year 2015 PCE Index was 109.819, and the end-of-
year 1997 PCE Index was 79.657. Assets-under-management test
calculation to adjust for the effects of inflation: (109.819/79.657)
x $750,000 = $1,033,986.34; $1,033,986.34 rounded to the nearest
multiple of $100,000 = $1,000,000. Net worth test calculation to
adjust for the effects of inflation: (109.819/79.657) x $1,500,000 =
$2,067,972.68; $2,067,972.68 rounded to the nearest multiple of
$100,000 = $2,100,000.The values of the PCE Index are available from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a bureau of the United States
Department of Commerce. See http://www.bea.gov; see also Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Table 2.3.4., ``Price Indexes for Personal
Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product,'' available at
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1&903=64 (last
visited April 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We anticipate that future changes to the dollar amount tests that
are issued by order will be reflected in technical amendments to rule
205-3(d), which would be adopted after such order is issued.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See May 2011 Release, supra note 13, at n.27 (noting that
the Commission anticipated, when it issued its notice of intent to
issue an order revising the dollar amount thresholds of the assets-
under-management test and the net worth test, that ``future changes
to the dollar amount test that are issued by order, will be
reflected in technical amendments to rule 205-3'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Effective Date

    We anticipate that, if we issue the order described above, the
effective date will be 60 days following the order date.\26\ To the
extent that contractual relationships are entered into prior to the
order's effective date, the dollar amount test adjustments in the order
would not generally apply retroactively to such contractual
relationships, subject to the transition rules incorporated in rule
205-3.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ When the Commission issued the 2011 Order adjusting the
dollar amount tests of rule 205-3 as described above, the 2011
Order's effective date was approximately 60 days following its
issuance. See supra note 14.
    \27\ See rule 205-3(c)(1) (``If a registered investment adviser
entered into a contract and satisfied the conditions of this section
that were in effect when the contract was entered into, the adviser
will be considered to satisfy the conditions of this section;
Provided, however, that if a natural person or company who was not a
party to the contract becomes a party (including an equity owner of
a private investment company advised by the adviser), the conditions
of this section in effect at that time will apply with regard to
that person or company.''); see also May 2011 Release, supra note
13, at section II.B.3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the Commission.

     Dated: May 18, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12167 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20199-20200]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08206]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014; FRL-9908-31]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations,
voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency of
the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation
order follows an August 28, 2013, Federal Register Notice of Receipt of
Requests from the registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit II., to
voluntarily cancel these product registrations. In the August 28, 2013
notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the
cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within
the 180 day comment period that would merit its further review of these
requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency
received one comment on the notice but it did not merit its further
review of the request. Further, the registrants did not withdraw their
requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation
order granting the requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or
use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted
only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing
stocks provisions.

DATES: The cancellations are effective April 11, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Pates, Jr., Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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, 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.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by
registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3. These
registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1
of this unit.

                     Table 1--Product Cancellations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  EPA Registration  number        Product name          Chemical name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
000100-00736................  Banner GL...........  Propiconazole.
000100-00737................  Tilt Gel Fungicide..  Propiconazole.
000400-00587................  Technical             Orthosulfamuron.
                               Orthosulfamuron.
000400-00588................  Percutio GR.........  Orthosulfamuron.
000400-00589................  Percutio WG.........  Orthosulfamuron.
000400-00590................  Percutio XT.........  Orthosulfamuron.
012455-00134................  Technical             Hydramethylnon.
                               Hydramethylnon.
033688-00005................  Technical Amitrole..  Amitrole.
033688-00006................  Maxata Brand          Amitrole.
                               Industrial
                               Herbicide.
033688-00010................  Maxata Water Soluble  Amitrole.
                               Granules.
062190-00008................  Wolman Concentrate    Arsenic Oxide
                               72%.                  (As2O5), Chromic
                                                     Acid, Cupric Oxide.
CA-100005...................  Terad3 Ag Pellets...  Cholecalciferol (9,
                                                     10-Secocholesta-
                                                     5,7,10(19)-trien-3-
                                                     ol, (3 beta.,
                                                     5Z,7E)-).
NC-090005...................  Milestone VM........  Triisopropanolamine
                                                     salt of
                                                     aminopyralid.
NC-100004...................  Milestone VM........  Triisopropanolamine
                                                     salt of
                                                     aminopyralid.
WA-980019...................  Agri-Mek 0.15EC       Abamectin.
                               Miticide/
                               Insecticide.
WI-110003...................  Lorsban 15G.........  Chlorpyrifos.
WI-110005...................  Spartan 4F..........  Sulfentrazone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the
EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this
unit.

               Table 2.--Registrants of Cancelled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           EPA Company number                Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 WA-980019..........................  Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
                                          410 Swing Rd., P.O. Box 18300
                                          Greensboro, NC 27419-8300.

400....................................  Chemtura Corporation 199 Benson
                                          Rd., Middlebury, CT 06749.
12455 CA-100005........................  Bell Laboratories, Inc., 3699
                                          Kinsman Blvd., Madison, WI
                                          53704.
33688..................................  Nufarm SA, Agent: Nufarm
                                          Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial
                                          Center Parkway, Suite 101,
                                          Morrisville, NC 27560.
62190..................................  Arch Wood Protection, Inc.,
                                          5660 New Northside Dr. NW.,
                                          Suite 1100, Atlanta, GA 30328.
NC-090005; NC-100004; WI-110003........  Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330
                                          Zionsville Rd., 308/2E,
                                          Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054.
WI-110005..............................  FMC Corp., Agricultural
                                          Products Group, Attn: Michael
                                          C. Zucker, 1735 Market St.,
                                          Room 1978, Philadelphia, PA
                                          19103.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    During the public comment period, EPA received one comment. The
Agency does not believe that the comment submitted during the comment
period merits further review or a denial of the request for voluntary
cancellation.

IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested
cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II.
Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations
identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are cancelled. The effective date of
the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is April 11,
2014. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products
identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of
the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI.
will be a violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be cancelled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve
such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for
comment in the Federal Register issue of August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53141)
(FRL-9396-4). The comment period closed on February 24, 2014.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products
subject to this order are as follows.
    The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks
of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until April 13, 2015, which
is 1 year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the
Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from
selling or distributing products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., except
for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17, or proper disposal.
Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use
existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., until
existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution,
or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling
on, or that accompanied, the cancelled products.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-08206 Filed 4-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 28934]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6596]

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program: Eligibility of Ground
Access Projects Meeting Certain Criteria; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy amendment and request for comments;
correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects the notice of proposed policy published
on May 3, 2016. In that document, the FAA solicited comments on a
proposal to amend its ``Notice of Policy Regarding the Eligibility of
Airport Ground Access Transportation Projects for Funding Under the
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program,'' \1\ regarding the
requirements for PFC funding of on-airport, rail access projects. This
document corrects errors in the docket number and contact information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 69 FR 6366 (Feb. 10, 2004).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: May 10, 2016. The comment period will close June 2, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Hebert, Manager, Financial
Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch, APP-510, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 3, 2016, the FAA published a notice
titled ``Notice of Proposed Policy Amendment and Request for Comments''
(81 FR 26611). In that Notice, the FAA proposed to change the policy
regarding the Passenger Facility Charge eligibility of ground access
projects meeting certain criteria. The notice was inadvertently issued
without a correct Docket Number and complete contact information.
    In FR Doc. 2016-10334, beginning on page 26611 in the Federal
Register, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 26611, in the first column, after Federal Aviation
Administration, add Docket No. FAA-2016-6596; and in the first
paragraph under ADDRESSES, correct Docket Number FAA 2016-XXXX to read
Docket No. FAA-2016-6596.
    2. On page 26611, in the second column, after FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, add Joe Hebert, Manager, Financial Analysis and
Passenger Facility Charge Branch, APP-510, and on line 8, remove 267-
3831 and add in its place 267-8375.

    Issued in Washington DC, on May 4, 2016.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2016-10975 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 5561]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-330-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.
    Description: Interruptible Transportation Refund Report for the
Coyote Springs Lateral of Gas Transmission Northwest LLC under RP17-
330.
    Filed Date: 1/9/17.
    Accession Number: 20170109-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/17.
    Docket Numbers: RP17-331-000.
    Applicants: Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Implementation of Approved
Stipulation and Agreement in Docket No. RP17-204-000 to be effective 1/
1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/9/17.
    Accession Number: 20170109-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/17.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-29-001.
    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc., AEP Generating Company,
Lightstone Generation LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver and
Request for Expedited Action and Shortened Notice Period of AEP
Generation Resources Inc., et. al. under RP17-29.
    Filed Date: 1/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170106-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/17.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 10, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00961 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ OAR 2003 0196; FRL ]

RIN: 2060 AK73 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On March 5, 2004, EPA published final national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for stationary combustion turbines. As part of the NESHAP, EPA established eight subcategories of stationary combustion turbines. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is publishing a proposed rule to delete four of these subcategories from the source category list required by section 112( c)( 1) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). The EPA has made an initial determination that the four subcategories satisfy the criteria for deletion from the source category list established by section 112( c)( 9)( B).

In this companion action, EPA is proposing to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas fired turbines and diffusion flame gas fired turbines subcategories, which are the two principal subcategories we are proposing to delist. This action is necessary to avoid wasteful and unwarranted 2 expenditures on installation of emission controls which will not be required if the subcategories are delisted.

DATES: Comments. Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by EPA no later than [ INSERT DATE 45 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Public Hearing. A public hearing regarding the proposed rule will be held if requests to speak are received by the EPA on or before [ INSERT DATE 7 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If requested, a public hearing will be held on [ INSERT DATE 14 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier.

Electronic comments may be submitted on line at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/. Written comments sent by U. S.

mail should be submitted ( in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( Mail Code 6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR 2003 0196, Room B108,

U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Written comments delivered in person or by courier ( e. g., FedEx, Airborne, and UPS) should be submitted ( in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( Mail Code 6102T), Attention Docket 3 Number OAR 2003 0196, Room B102, U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below ( see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by [ INSERT DATE 7 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the public hearing will be held in our EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC on [ INSERT DATE 14 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony should contact Ms. Kelly A.

Rimer, Risk and Exposure Assessment Group, Emission Standards Division ( C404 01), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 2962.

Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Rimer to verify the time of the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kelly A. Rimer, Risk and Exposure Assessment Group, Emission Standards Division ( C404 01), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number ( 919) 541 2962, electronic mail address rimer. kelly@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID Number OAR 2003 0196. The 4 official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), EPA West, Room B 108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742.

Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search" and key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. Information claimed as confidential business information ( CBI) and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper 5 form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material,

will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical,

physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, 6 by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked " late." The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name,

mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 7 able to consider your comment.

Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system,

select " search" and key in Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0196. The system is an " anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e mail) to a and r docket@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2003

0196. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an " anonymous access" system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in this document.

These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 8 or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

By Mail. Send your comments ( in duplicate, if possible) to:

EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), U. S. EPA West, ( MD 6102T),

Room B 108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0196.

By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments ( in duplicate, if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, Room B 108,

U. S. EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0196. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Center's normal hours of operation.

By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: ( 202) 566 1741, Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0196.

CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Kelly Rimer, c/ o Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0196. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM,

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 9 specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

Worldwide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,

call the TTN HELP line at ( 919) 541 5384.

Applicable Law. Pursuant to CAA section 307( d)( 1)( V), the Administrator has determined that it is appropriate to conduct this rulemaking according to the procedures established by CAA section 307( d).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:

 Category SIC NAICS Examples of regulated entities  Any industry 4911 2211 Electric power generation, using a transmission, or stationary distribution combustion 4922 486210 Natural gas transmission 10 turbine as 1311 211111 Crude petroleum and natural defined gas production in the 1321 211112 Natural gas liquids producers regulation. 4931 221 Electric and other services combined This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.6085 of the final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing a rule to amend the list of categories of sources that was developed pursuant to CAA section 112( c)( 1). The EPA is proposing to delete four subcategories from the Combustion Turbines source category. Final MACT standards creating these subcategories was published on March 5, 2004. The standards will be published soon and will be codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY. The subcategories, as defined in 40 CFR 63.6175, are: ( 1) lean premix gas fired stationary combustion turbines ( also referred to herein as " lean premix gas fired turbines"), ( 2) diffusion flame gas fired stationary combustion turbines ( also referred to herein as " diffusion flame gas fired turbines"), ( 3) emergency 11 stationary combustion turbines, and 4) stationary combustion turbines located on the North Slope of Alaska.

The proposed rule to amend the source category list is being issued in part to respond to a petition submitted by the Gas Turbine Association ( GTA) and in part upon the Administrator's own motion. Petitions to remove a source category from the source category list are permitted under section 112( c)( 9) of the CAA. The proposed rule to delete the four subcategories is based on an initial determination by EPA that the subcategories satisfy the substantive criteria for deletion set forth in section 112( c)( 9)( B).

The proposed rule to delete the subcategories that appears elsewhere in today's Federal Register contains a detailed description of the technical basis for the initial determination.

Although EPA is proposing to delete from the source category list four subcategories established by the final MACT standards for Stationary Combustion Turbines, CAA section 112( d)( 10) provides that the standards for the four subcategories will take effect upon publication of the standards. All turbines in the lean premix gas fired turbine and the diffusion flame gas fired turbine subcategories which were constructed or reconstructed after January 14, 2003, will then be required to comply immediately with the emission standards for new sources. 12 This may cause some sources in the two subcategories to make immediate expenditures on installation and testing of emission controls, even though such controls will not be required if we adopt a final rule to delete these subcategories. In view of our initial determination that the statutory criteria for delisting have been met for all sources in the four subcategories, we consider it inappropriate and contrary to statutory intent to mandate such expenditures until after a final determination has been made whether or not these subcategories should be delisted.

Such expenditures would be wasteful and unwarranted if we take final action to delist these subcategories. Moreover,

if we take final action to delist the subcategories, sources constructed or reconstructed while the rulemaking to delist is pending would bear a regulatory burden not placed on identical sources constructed or reconstructed thereafter.

Accordingly, we are proposing this rule to stay the effectiveness of the emission standards for new sources for the lean premix gas fired turbine and diffusion flame gasfired turbine subcategories during the pendency of the rulemaking to delete these subcategories.

We are mindful that there would be no need to stay the effectiveness of the standards for new sources in the two subcategories if a rulemaking to delist the affected sources had been completed before promulgation of the final MACT 13 standards for combustion turbines. However, we note that the GTA petition was not submitted until quite late in the regulatory process. Moreover, we generally do not make a definite determination concerning the characteristics of subcategories until promulgation of final MACT standards.

In these circumstances, we do not believe it would be fair to make certain affected sources bear the burden of a delay in our determination that a subcategory meets the statutory criteria for delisting.

The proposed stay is consistent with the precedents we have established in similar circumstances in the past. In 1991, we issued a final rule staying the effective date of the National Emission Standards for Radionuclide Emissions from Federal Facilities Other Than Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licenses and not covered by Subpart H ( 40 CFR part 61, Subpart H)( 40 CFR part 61, Subpart I) for commercial nuclear power reactors during the pendency of another rulemaking to rescind the standards for those facilities ( 56 FR 37158 August 5, 1991). The rescission was authorized by section 112( d)( 9) of the CAA ( the " Simpson amendment"), which provides that we may decline to regulate Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC) licensees under CAA section 112 if the Administrator determines that the regulatory program established by the NRC for a category or subcategory provides an ample margin of safety to protect 14 the public health. We had made an initial determination that the NRC program for commercial nuclear power reactors met this test, and we reasoned that " it would frustrate the evident purpose of Section 112( d)( 9) if EPA were to permit Subpart I to take effect for this subcategory during the pendency of the rulemaking on rescission" ( 56 FR 37159).

That action was not challenged.

In 1995, we acted to provide another type of interim relief during a delisting rulemaking. We suspended the listing of caprolactam, during a rulemaking to delete caprolactam from the list of HAP established by CAA section 112( b)( 1) for purposes of determining the applicability of title V permitting requirements ( 60 FR 081, September 18,

1995). We based that action on our determination that " retention, during the rulemaking to delist caprolactam, of permit application requirements which will no longer exist after the delisting process has been completed would result in unnecessary private and public expenditures on preparation, submission, and processing of such applications, and would yield no environmental benefits" ( 60 FR 084 85). That interim relief action also was not challenged.

We are proposing to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines emission standards for new sources in the lean premix gas fired turbines and the diffusion flame 15 gas fired turbines subcategories, but only during the pendency of the rulemaking to delist the subcategories. It is not our intention by staying the effectiveness of the standards to change the definition of new sources within these subcategories or to alter the status of any individual source. If the subcategories are not ultimately delisted,

the stay will be lifted, and all sources in the subcategories constructed or reconstructed after January 14,

2003 will then be subject to the final standards. The sources will then be given the same time to make the requisite demonstration of compliance they would have had if there had been no stay.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4,

1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adverse affect in a material way the economy, a sector to the economy, productivity, competition, 16 jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state,

local or tribal governments or communities;

( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that the proposed action constitutes a " significant regulatory action" because it may raise novel policy issues and is therefore subject to OMB review.

Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record ( see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The proposed action will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas fired turbines and diffusion flame gas fired turbines subcategories until a conclusion is reached regarding deletion and therefore eliminate the need 17 for information collection toward regulatory compliance under the CAA. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 18 agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small business, small organizations,

and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business that meets the definitions for small business based on the Small Business Association ( SBA) size standards which, for this proposed action, can include manufacturing ( NAICS 3999

03) and air transportation ( NAICS 4522 98 and 4512 98)

operations that employ less 1,000 people and engineering services ( NAICS 8711 98) operations that earn less than $ 20 million annually; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small 19 entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address regulatory alternatives " which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities." ( 5 U. S. C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. The proposed rule will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas fired turbines and diffusion flame gas fired turbines subcategories. This will stay the requirements to apply controls and will also stay associated operating, monitoring and reporting requirements. These burdens will be permanently lifted if EPA ultimately removes the four source categories from the stationary combustion turbine source category, and temporarily lifted if EPA does not ultimately delist the subcategories. We have,

therefore, concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 20 ( UMRA), Public Law 1044, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to State,

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 21 governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,

educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State,

local or tribal governments or the private sector. In any event, EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999)

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications"

is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, 22 or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government."

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

Today's action proposes to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas fired turbines and diffusion flame gas fired turbines subcategories. It does not impose any additional requirements on the States and does not affect the balance of power between the States and the Federal government.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled " Consultation and 23 Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" ( 65 FR 67249,

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." The proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.

The proposed action will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas fired turbines and diffusion flame gas fired turbines subcategories. Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying 24 only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because this action is not based on health or safety risks. Thus,

Executive Order 13045 does not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions identified as " significant energy actions." The proposed rule is not a " significant energy action" because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 112( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law No. 104 113,

section 12( d) 915 U. S. C. 272 note), directs all Federal 25 agencies to use voluntary consensus standards instead of government unique standards in their regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., material specifications, test method, sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers ( SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 26 National Emission Standards for Hazardous air Pollutants for Stationary combustion Turbines  Stay Proposal Page 27 of 27 List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control,

Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

______________________ Dated:

______________________ Michael O. Leavitt Administrator


[Federal Register: December 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 70748-70749]
[DOCID:fr06de06-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-305-030]

CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission Corporation;
Notice of Negotiated Rate

November 29, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 22, 2006, CenterPoint Energy--
Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as
part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following
tariff sheets to be effective November 22, 2006:

First Revised Sheet No. 10E
First Revised Sheet No. 10F

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or

protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20602 Filed 12-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16759-16760]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0172]

Port Access Route Study: Seacoast of New Jersey Including
Offshore Approaches to the Delaware Bay, Delaware

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the completion of the Port Access
Route Study for the Seacoast of New Jersey Including Offshore
Approaches to the Delaware Bay, Delaware. The study examined existing
shipping routes and waterway uses, to include the potential for
offshore energy development, in the study area to evaluate the need for
establishing or changing existing vessel routing measures. This notice
summarizes the study's recommendation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice or study, call or email Mr. Matthew Creelman, Marine Planner at
Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

ACPARS Atlantic Coast Ports Access Route Study
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OREI Offshore Renewable Energy Installation
PARS Port Access Route Study
SAR Search and Rescue
USCG United States Coast Guard

II. Background and Purpose

    We conducted this Port Access Route Study (PARS) following a Notice
of Study, published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2020. There was a
60-day public comment period, as well as other outreach efforts
identified in Section C of the study. During the comment period the
USCG received 32 comments in response to the notice.
    We conducted two (2) public meetings, as published in the Federal
Register (85 FR 64507), on September 13, 2020. Audio recordings of both
meetings are contained in the public docket as annotated in Section C
of the study.
    On September 24, 2021, we published a Notice of Availability of the
draft study in the Federal Register (86 FR 53089) with a 30-day public
comment period and a request for public comment.
    During the 30-day public comment period, the USCG received 15
comments in response to our draft study. All comments and supporting
documents are available in the public docket and can be viewed at
https://www.regulations.gov. To view documents, in the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2020-0172'' and click ``Search''.
    The goal of the study is to enhance navigational safety in the
study area by examining existing shipping routes and waterway uses. We
have undertaken measures to (1) determine what, if any, navigational
safety concerns exist with vessel transits in the study area; (2)
determine whether to recommend changes to enhance navigational safety
by examining existing shipping routes and all other waterway uses; and
(3) reconcile any other proposed changes with other reasonable waterway
uses.

III. Study Recommendations

    The recommendations of this PARS are based on the data analysis for
historical vessel traffic patterns, comments received to the docket,
public outreach, and consultation with other government agencies and
stakeholders. Recommendations in the study include:
    1. Submit proposals to the IMO to create precautionary areas
offshore from the entrance to the Delaware River where shipping safety
fairways and traffic separation schemes intersect.
    2. Submit proposals to the IMO to extend the Traffic Separation
Schemes in the approach to the Delaware River beyond any OREI lease
areas adjacent to the approaches.
    3. Submit a proposal to the IMO to extend the two-way route along
the New Jersey coast across the entrance of the Delaware Bay and along
the Delaware coast.
    4. Amend the proposed Shipping Safety Fairways along the Atlantic
Coast to separate the Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway into a Cape
Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway and a Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway.
    5. Create a New Jersey to New York Fairway and include this in the
Shipping Safety Fairways along the Atlantic Coast.
    6. Establish a Fairway Anchorage adjacent to the Southeastern
Traffic Separation Scheme to accommodate future needs for safe
anchorage around OREI.

IV. Summary of Changes

    Recommendations in Section F were expanded to include a general
notice to mariners on navigation safety around OREI.
    The table of coordinates was removed in an effort to avoid
confusion. Detailed coordinates for proposed routing measures,
fairways, and anchorage grounds will be announced in future
rulemakings.
    A statement acknowledging the impact of OREI on SAR was included in
Section F to address future actions necessary to ensure operational
units revise plans to incorporate in the future.
    A section summarizing comments to the draft report from the public
was added as a new Section G and subsequent sections were re-labeled to
incorporate this addition.

V. Future Actions

    The USCG will continue to serve as a NEPA cooperating agency to the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) environmental review of each
proposed OREI project. In that role, the USCG will evaluate the
navigational safety risks of each proposal on a case-by-case basis.
    The final study will be submitted to the Coast Guard's Office of
Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-2) for consideration and to inform the Coast
Guard's ongoing efforts to establish shipping safety fairways along the
Atlantic Coast, which can be found at 85 FR 37034.
    The final study is available for viewing and download from the
Federal Register docket at http://www.regulations.gov or the USCG
Navigation Center website at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARSReports.

    Dated: March 18, 2022.
Laura M. Dickey,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-06228 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P