[Federal Register: July 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 140)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40105-40109]
[DOCID:fr23jy07-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0042-200715; FRL-8443-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Tennessee;
Approval of Revisions to the Tennessee SIP and the Nashville/Davidson
County Portion of the Tennessee SIP; Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Tennessee on February 23, 2006, and
May 31, 2006. The proposed revisions modify Tennessee's and Nashville/
Davidson County's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) regulations in the SIP to
address changes to the federal NSR regulations, which were promulgated
by EPA on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and reconsidered with minor
changes on November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021) (collectively, these two
final actions are called the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules''). EPA's 2002 NSR
Reform Rules, proposed for inclusion in the Tennessee SIP and the
Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP, contain
provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-
actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options for
plant-wide applicability limits, and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0042, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0042,'' Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2006-0042. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

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

Section, Air Planning 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: For information regarding the
Tennessee State Implementation Plan, contact Mr. James Hou, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding New Source Review, contact

Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Adams can also be reached via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references to
``EPA,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our,'' are intended to mean the
Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is
arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA proposing today?
II. Why is EPA proposing this action?
III. What is EPA's Analysis of Tennessee's and Nashville/Davidson
County's NSR Rule Revisions?
IV. What action is EPA taking today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing today?

    On February 23, 2006, and May 31, 2006, the State of Tennessee,
through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC), submitted revisions to the Tennessee SIP, and the Nashville/
Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP. Nashville/Davidson County
is separately authorized to implement and enforce the NSR program in
that region of Tennessee. The February 23, 2006, SIP submittal consists
of revisions to the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations.
Specifically, the proposed SIP revisions include changes to TDEC Rule
.01 of chapter 1200-3-9 entitled, ``Construction Permits.'' The May 31,
2006, submittal consists of revisions to the Nashville Pollution
Control Division's (NPCD's) Regulation 3 entitled, ``New Source
Review.'' TDEC submitted these revisions in response to EPA's December
31, 2002, revisions to the Federal NSR program.
    In a letter to EPA dated April 16, 2007, Tennessee requested to
amend the February 23, 2006, SIP submittal in light of the decision
issued by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit Court) on June 24, 2005. The June 24,
2005, decision is discussed in further detail below. Tennessee
requested that the portion of the Tennessee SIP revision related to the
EPA rules that were vacated by the DC Circuit Court (specifically the
clean unit and pollution control project provisions) not be approved
into the SIP. The affected portions of the February 23, 2006, submittal
are as follows: sections

(b)2.(i)(VIII), (b)4.(iii)(III), (b)4.(vi)(IV), (b)35., (b)39.,
(c)4.(v), (c)6., (p), (q), and (r) of Rule 1200-3-9-.01(4); sections
(b)1.(v)(III)VIII, (b)1.(vi)(III)III, (b)1.(vi)(V)V, (b)1.(xxxvii),
(b)1.(xli), (b)2.(v)(IX), (b)2.(v)(X), (b)2.(xvi), (b)2.(xix), (b)7.,
(b)8., and (b)9. of Rule 1200-3-9-.01(5); and all references to clean
units and pollution control projects at sections (a)11. and (c)4.(vi)
of Rule 1200-3-9-.01(4); and sections (b)2.(xvii) and (b)5. of Rule
1200-3-9-.01(5). EPA is now proposing to approve the SIP revisions
submitted by TDEC on February 23, 2006, May 31, 2006, and April 16,
2007, which will revise the Tennessee SIP and the Nashville/Davidson
County portion of the Tennessee SIP.

II. Why is EPA proposing this action?

    On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule changes to 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52, regarding the Clean Air
Act's (CAA or Act) PSD and NNSR programs (67 FR 80186). On November 7,
2003, EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of
the December 31, 2002, final rule changes (68 FR 63021). In that
November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the definition of
``replacement unit,'' and clarified an issue regarding plantwide
applicability limitations (PALs). The December 31, 2002, and the
November 7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as the
``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' The purpose of this action is to propose to
approve the SIP submittals from the State of Tennessee, which include
the provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts
C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in
areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)--
``attainment'' areas--as well as in areas for which there is
insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the
NAAQS--``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are
not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment'' areas. Collectively,
the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the ``New Source Review''
or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are
contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix
S.
    The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets
those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air;
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national
parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls
are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the consequences of the decision.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply
with plant-wide applicability limits to avoid having a significant
emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR
program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for emissions units
that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude pollution control
projects (PCPs) from the definition of ``physical change or change in
the method of operation.'' On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice
of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (68
FR 63021), which added a definition for ``replacement unit'' and
clarified an issue regarding PALs. For additional information on the
2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and http://www.epa.gov/nsr
.

    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March
3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged
numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of
EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005,
the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002
NSR Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005).
In summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of the rules
pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a
portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g. 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)
and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not comment on the
other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On
March 8, 2007, EPA issued a proposed rule in response to the Court's
remand regarding the recordkeeping provisions. The proposed rule
describes two alternative options to clarify what constitutes
``reasonable possibility'' and when the ``reasonable possibility''
recordkeeping requirements apply (72 FR 10445). The ``reasonable
possibility'' standard identifies for sources and reviewing authorities
the circumstances under which a major stationary source undergoing a
modification that does not trigger major NSR must keep records.
Further, on June 13, 2007, EPA took final action to revise the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules to exclude the portions that were vacated by the DC
Circuit Court (72 FR 32526). Today's action on the Tennessee SIP is
consistent with the decision of the DC Circuit Court because
Tennessee's submittals do not include any portions of the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules that were vacated as part of the June 2005 decision.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and
submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the
minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than
January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i),
state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions
within 3 years after new amendments are published in the Federal
Register.) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent
regulations. However, if a state decides not to implement any of the
new applicability provisions, that state is required to demonstrate
that its existing program is at least as stringent as the federal
program.
    On February 23, 2006, May 31, 2006, and April 16, 2007, the State
of Tennessee submitted SIP revisions for the purpose of revising the
State's and Nashville/Davidson County's NSR permitting provisions.
These changes were made primarily to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
As discussed in further detail below, EPA believes the revisions
contained in the Tennessee

submittals are approvable for inclusion into the Tennessee SIP and the
Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP.

III. What is EPA's Analysis of Tennessee's and Nashville/Davidson
County's NSR Rule Revisions?

    Tennessee and Nashville/Davidson County currently have SIP-approved
NSR programs for new and modified stationary sources. EPA is proposing
to approve revisions to Tennessee's and Nashville/Davidson County's
existing NSR regulations in the SIP. The Tennessee proposed revisions
became state-effective on February 14, 2006, and were submitted to EPA
on February 23, 2006. The Nashville/Davidson County proposed revisions
were approved by the Air Pollution Control Board of the State of
Tennessee on May 10, 2006, and were submitted to EPA on May 31, 2006.
Copies of the revised rules, as well as the State's Technical Support
Documents, can be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the
``Docket'' section above. A discussion of the specific changes to
TDEC's and NPCD's rules that are proposed for inclusion in the SIP are
summarized below.
    TDEC's Rule 1200-3-9-.01(4) contains the preconstruction review
program that provides for the PSD of ambient air quality as required
under Part C of title I of the CAA. NPCD's Regulation 3 contains
Nashville/Davidson County's PSD program. The PSD program applies to
major stationary sources or modifications constructed in areas that are
designated as attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS.
TDEC's PSD program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on April
24, 1980, and has been revised several times. NPCD's PSD program was
originally approved into the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the
Tennessee SIP on June 24, 1982, and has been revised several times as
well.
    TDEC's permitting requirements for major sources in or impacting
upon nonattainment areas are set forth at Rule 1200-3-9-.01(5). NPCD's
NNSR requirements are set forth at Regulation 3. The Tennessee NNSR
program was originally approved into the Tennessee SIP on June 7, 1979,
with subsequent amendments. The Nashville NNSR program was originally
approved into the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee
SIP on June 24, 1982, with subsequent amendments. The NNSR requirements
apply to the construction and modification of any major stationary
source of air pollution in a nonattainment area, as required by Part D
of title I of the CAA. To receive approval to construct, a source that
is subject to these requirements must show that it will not cause a net
increase in pollution, will not create a delay in meeting the NAAQS,
and that the source will install and use control technology that
achieves the lowest achievable emissions rate.
    The current revisions to TDEC's Rule 1200-3-9-.01, and NPCD's
Regulation 3, which EPA is proposing to approve into the Tennessee SIP
and the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP, were
provided to update the existing provisions to be consistent with the
current Federal PSD and NNSR rules, including the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules. These revisions address baseline actual emissions, actual-to-
projected-actual applicability tests, and PALs. State agencies may meet
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with
different but equivalent regulations. TDEC and NPCD have made one
change to the Federal regulations. The definition of ``baseline actual
emissions,'' found in parts 1200-3-9-.01(4)(b)45 and 1200-3-
9-.01(5)(b)1.(xlvii) of the TDEC rule, and Section 3-1(e) of NPCD
Regulation 3, was changed to remove the provision allowing different
consecutive 24-month periods for different pollutants. Therefore, under
TDEC's and NPCD's rules, a single 24-month period must be used for all
regulated NSR pollutants when calculating baseline actual emissions.
This provision was changed from the Federal requirements on the
recommendation of the industry and environmental advocacy
representatives in the Tennessee stakeholder group that worked with the
State to develop the revisions to the Tennessee NSR program.
    As part of our review of the Tennessee SIP submittals, we performed
a line-by-line review of the proposed revisions, including the
provision which differs from the Federal rules, and have determined
that they are consistent with the program requirements for the
preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for NSR set
forth at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. TDEC's Rule 1200-3-9-.01 and NPCD's
Regulation 3 do not incorporate the portions of the Federal rules that
were vacated by the DC Circuit Court, including the clean unit
provisions, the pollution control projects exclusion, and the equipment
replacement provision which was promulgated shortly after the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. As noted earlier, EPA responded to the DC Circuit Court's
remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules
by proposing two alternative options to clarify when the recordkeeping
requirements apply. TDEC's and NPCD's rules contain recordkeeping
requirements that are substantially the same as the remanded Federal
rule. While final action by EPA with regard to the remand may require
EPA to take further action on the Tennessee SIP, at this time the rules
contained in the proposed SIP revisions are the same as existing
Federal law and are therefore approvable.

IV. What action is EPA taking today?

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve the
changes made to Tennessee's Rule 1200-3-9-.01 (Construction Permits) as
submitted by TDEC on February 23, 2006, and amended on April 16, 2007,
as revisions to the Tennessee SIP. In addition, EPA is proposing to
approve changes made to NPCD Regulation 3 (New Source Review) as
submitted by TDEC on May 31, 2006, as revisions to the Nashville/
Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that the
proposed approvals in this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it approves a sate rule implementing a Federal
standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in
the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use
voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove
a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent
with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use
VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 12, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-14171 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55883-55885]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23283]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75899; File No. SR-NSCC-2015-803])

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice To Enhance NSCC's
Margining Methodology as Applied to Family-Issued Securities of Certain
NSCC Members

September 11, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 806(e)(1) of title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 \1\ (``Clearing
Supervision Act'') and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''), notice is hereby given that on August
14, 2015, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
advance notice SR-NSCC-2015-803 (``Advance Notice'') as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by NSCC.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the Advance
Notice from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ On August 14, 2015, NSCC filed this Advance Notice as a
proposed rule change (SR-NSCC-2015-003) with the Commission pursuant
to section 19(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), and Rule 19b-4,
17 CFR 240.19b-4. A copy of the proposed rule change is available at
http://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    This Advance Notice consists of amendments to NSCC's Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') in order to enhance NSCC's margining methodology
as applied to family-issued

securities of those NSCC Members \4\ that are placed on NSCC's ``Watch
List'', i.e. those Member [sic] who present a heightened credit risk to
NSCC or have demonstrated higher risk related to their ability to meet
settlement, as more fully described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available
at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    In November 2013, NSCC engaged in outreach to its Members by
providing those Members with a description of the proposal and the
results of an impact study showing the potential impact of this
proposal on Members' Clearing Fund required deposits. NSCC did not
receive any written comments relating to this proposal in response to
this outreach. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by NSCC.

(B) Advance Notice Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act

Description of Change
    NSCC is proposing to enhance its margin methodology as applied to
the family-issued securities of its Members that are on its Watch List
\5\ by excluding these securities from the volatility component, or
``VaR'' charge, and then charging an amount calculated by multiplying
the absolute value of the long net unsettled positions in that Member's
family-issued securities by a percentage that is no less than 40%. The
haircut rate to be charged would be determined based on the Member's
rating on the credit risk rating matrix and the type of family-issued
security submitted to NSCC. Fixed income securities that are family-
issued securities would be charged a haircut rate of no less than 80%
for firms that are rated 6 or 7 on the credit risk rating matrix, and
no less than 40% for firms that are rated 5 on the credit risk rating
matrix; and equity securities that are family-issued securities would
be charged a haircut rate of 100% for firms that are rated 6 or 7 on
the credit risk rating matrix, and no less than 50% for firms that are
rated 5 on the credit risk rating matrix. NSCC would have the authority
to adjust these haircut rates from time to time within these parameters
as described in Procedure XV of NSCC's Rules without filing a proposed
rule change with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Act,\6\ and the rules thereunder, or an advance notice with the
Commission pursuant to section 806(e)(1) of the Clearing Supervision
Act,\7\ and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As part of its ongoing monitoring of its membership, NSCC
utilizes an internal credit risk rating matrix to rate its risk
exposures to its Members based on a scale from 1 (the strongest) to
7 (the weakest). Members that fall within the higher risk rating
categories (i.e. 5, 6, and 7) are considered on NSCC's ``Watch
List'', and may be subject to enhanced surveillance or additional
margin charges, as permitted under NSCC's Rules. See Section 4 of
Rule 2B and section I(B)(1) of Procedure XV of NSCC's Rules, supra
Note 1 [sic].
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \7\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated Effect on and Management of Risk
    As a central counterparty, NSCC occupies an important role in the
securities settlement system by interposing itself between
counterparties to financial transactions and thereby reducing the risk
faced by participants and contributing to global financial stability.
The effectiveness of a central counterparty's risk controls and the
adequacy of its financial resources are critical to achieving these
risk-reducing goals. In that context, NSCC continuously reviews its
margining methodology in order to ensure the reliability of its
margining in achieving the desired coverage. In order to be most
effective, NSCC must take into consideration the risk characteristics
specific to certain securities when margining those securities.
    Among the various risks that NSCC considers when evaluating the
effectiveness of its margining methodology are its counterparty risks
and identification and mitigation of ``wrong-way'' risk, particularly
specific wrong-way risk, defined as the risk that an exposure to a
counterparty is highly likely to increase when the creditworthiness of
that counterparty deteriorates.\8\ NSCC has identified an exposure to
wrong-way risk when it acts as central counterparty to a Member with
respect to positions in securities that are issued by that Member or
that Member's affiliate. These positions are referred to as ``family-
issued securities.'' In the event that a Member with unsettled long
positions in family-issued securities defaults, NSCC would close out
those positions following a likely drop in the credit-worthiness of the
issuer, possibly resulting in a loss to NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Principles for financial market infrastructures, issued
by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Technical
Committee of the International Organization of Securities
Commissions 47 n.65 (April 2012), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/cpss101a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the overall impact of NSCC's proposal, as described
above, on risks presented by NSCC would be to reduce NSCC's exposure to
this type of wrong-way risk by enhancing its margin methodology as
applied to the family-issued securities of its Members that are on its
Watch List, and present a heightened credit risk to the clearing agency
or have demonstrated higher risk related to their ability to meet
settlement. NSCC believes a reduction in its exposures to wrong-way
risk through a margining methodology that more effectively capture
[sic] the risk characteristics of these positions would contribute to
the goal of maintaining financial stability in the event of a Member
default and reduce systemic risk overall. Because NSCC Members that are
on its Watch List present a heightened credit risk to the clearing
agency or have demonstrated higher risk related to their ability to
meet settlement, NSCC believes that this charge would more effectively
capture the risk characteristics of these positions and can help
mitigate NSCC's exposure to wrong-way risk.
    NSCC will continue to evaluate its exposures to wrong-way risk,
specifically wrong-way risk presented by family-issued securities,
including by reviewing the impact of expanding the application of the
proposed margining methodology to the family-issued securities of those
Members that are not on the Watch List. NSCC is proposing to apply the
enhanced margining methodology to the family-issued securities of
Members that are on the Watch List at this time because, as stated
above, these Members present a heightened credit risk to the clearing
agency or have demonstrated higher risk related to their ability to
meet settlement. As such, there is a clear and more urgent need to
address NSCC's exposure to wrong-way risk presented by these firms'
family-issued securities. However, any future change to the margining
methodology as applied to the family-issued securities of Members

that are not on the Watch List would be subject to a separate proposed
rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\9\ and the rules
thereunder and an advance notice pursuant to section 806(e)(1) of the
Clearing Supervision Act,\10\ and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \10\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistency with the Clearing Supervision Act. The objectives and
principles of section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act specify
the promotion of robust risk management, promotion of safety and
soundness, reduction of systemic risks and support of the stability of
the broader financial system.\11\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1), promulgated under
the Act, requires NSCC to measure its credit exposures to its
participants at least once a day and limit its exposures to potential
losses from defaults by its participants under normal market conditions
so that the operations of the clearing agency would not be disrupted
and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to losses that
they cannot anticipate or control.\12\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2), promulgated
under the Act, requires NSCC to use risk-based models for setting
margin requirements.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By enhancing the margin methodology as applied to the family-issued
securities of its Members that are on its Watch List the proposal would
assist NSCC in collecting margin that more accurately reflects the risk
characteristics of these securities, thereby limiting NSCC's exposures
to potential losses from defaults by these Members under normal market
conditions. By more closely capturing the risk characteristics of these
positions, the proposed enhancement to the margining methodology would
also assist NSCC in its continuous efforts to ensure the reliability
and effectiveness of its risk-based margining methodology. In this way,
the proposal would help NSCC, as a central counterparty, maintain
effective risk controls, contributing to the goal of maintaining
financial stability in the event of a Member default. Therefore, NSCC
believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of section
805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act and Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) and
(2), promulgated under the Act, cited above.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice, and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the
date that any additional information requested by the Commission is
received. NSCC shall not implement the proposed change if the
Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing NSCC with prompt written notice of the
extension. The proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days
from the date the Advance Notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies NSCC in writing that it does not object to the proposed change
and authorizes NSCC to implement the proposed change on an earlier
date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
    NSCC shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are
implemented.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2015-803 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2015-803. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the Advance Notice that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
Advance Notice between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's Web site
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2015-803 and should be submitted on
or before October 8, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23283 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 51877]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2550-028]

N.E.W. Hydro, LLC; Wisconsin8, LLC; Notice of Application for
Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    On July 13, 2016, N.E.W. Hydro, LLC (transferor) and Wisconsin8,
LLC (transferee) filed an application for the transfer of license of
the Weyauwega Hydroelectric Project No. 2550. The project is located on
the Waupaca River in Waupaca County, Wisconsin. The project does not
occupy federal lands.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Weyauwega Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the
transferee.
    Applicants Contact: For transferor: Mr. Bernard H. Cherry, N.E.W.
Hydro, LLC, c/o Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC, 65 Madison Avenue,
Morristown, NJ 07960, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Mr. Donald H. Clarke and Mr. Joshua E.
Adrian, Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C., 1615 M Street NW.,
Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Emails:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For Transferee: Mr. Dwight Bowler,
Wisconsin8, LLC, 813 Jefferson Hill Road, Nassau, New York 12123,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Mr. Joshua A. Sabo,
287 North Greenbush Road, Troy, New York 12180, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 Days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2550-028.

    Dated: July 26, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18573 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:  May 28, 2009

SUBJECT:	Addendum:  Cyazofamid. Amend Section 3 Registration to Add Uses
on Fruiting Vegetables, Okra, Grape (East of the Rocky Mountains), and
Greenhouse Vegetable Transplants.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry and
Residue Data.

PC Code:  085651	DP Barcode:  365554

Decision No.:  399610	Registration No.:  71512-3

Petition No.:  8E7427	Regulatory Action:  Sec. 3 Registration

Risk Assessment Type:  NA	Case No.:  NA

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:  120116-88-3

MRID No.:   None	40 CFR:  180.601

              									Ver.Apr.08

FROM:	Amelia M. Acierto, Chemist  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

		Risk Assessment Branch 3 (RAB3)

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Paula Deschamp, Branch Chief

		Risk Assessment Branch 3

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Barbara Madden, RM #5

		Risk Integration, Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1

This memorandum is to revise the recently completed residue chemistry
summary document for petition 8E7427 (DP357042, A. Acierto, 3/18/2009)
to delete the conditional requirement of  additional processing data for
grapes.  The paragraph under the regulatory recommendation section
should read as shown below:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry
Deficiencies

Pending submission of a revised Section B (see requirements under
Directions for Use), and submission of a revised Section F (see
requirements under Proposed Tolerances), there are no residue chemistry
issues that would preclude granting registration: for the requested use
of cyazofamid on grapes east of the Rocky Mountains; for the requested
uses on fruiting vegetables, crop group 8, and fruiting and cucurbit
vegetables intended for transplant; or establishment of  tolerances for
the combined residues of cyazofamid and its metabolite CCIM as follows:

This amendment is based on the conclusion under the Guideline 860.1520
Processed Food and Feed in D357042 that the available grape processing
data are adequate to satisfy data requirements, that the processing
studies on must can be used in place of studies on grape juice, that the
proposed tolerance for grapes, 1.5 ppm, is adequate to cover grape
juices and that no additional processing study is required.

Cyazofamid	Addendum: Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data
DP#365554

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40579-40580]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-2366]

Justin Ash: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring
Justin Ash for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for
import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this order on a
finding that Mr. Ash was convicted of one felony count under Federal
law for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. The
factual basis supporting Mr. Ash's conviction, as described below, is
conduct relating to the importation into the United States of a drug or
controlled substance. Mr. Ash was given notice of the proposed
debarment and was given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why
he should not be debarred. As of April 4, 2021 (30 days after receipt
of the notice), Mr. Ash had not responded. Mr. Ash's failure to respond
and request a hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing
concerning this matter.

DATES: This order is applicable July 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa (ELEM-4029), Division
of Enforcement (ELEM-4029), Office of Strategic Planning and
Operational Policy, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug
Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(D))
permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for
import any drug into the United States if FDA finds, as required by
section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been
convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the
United States of any drug or controlled substance.
    On November 24, 2020, Mr. Ash was convicted, as defined in section
306(l)(1) of FD&C Act, in the U. S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, when the court entered judgment against him
for the offense of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United
States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371.
    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony
conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is
as follows: As contained in the information in Mr. Ash's case, filed
December 10, 2019, to which he plead guilty, from on or about January
1, 2016, and continuing until May 8, 2018, he controlled an internet-
based business entity known as both DRC and Domestic RCS (hereinafter
DRC). During this time, Mr. Ash obtained bulk supplies of clonazolam,
diclazepam, flubromazolam, and etizolam (none of which have been
approved for use by FDA in the United States) from overseas sources,
including from suppliers in China. Mr. Ash caused his overseas
suppliers to ship these drugs in smaller quantities to multiple
addresses in the United States he controlled to draw less government
scrutiny. After receiving these bulk drugs, Mr. Ash caused his
employees to press them into pills and package them. Mr. Ash caused the
pill packaging to include disclaimers stating that the drugs were for
research purposes only, in part to evade detection by regulatory
authorities, including FDA. Mr. Ash then had the packages shipped to
customers throughout the United States who ordered the drugs through a
website he operated.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Ash, by certified
mail, on February 26, 2021, a notice proposing to debar him for a 5-
year period from importing or offering for import any drug into the
United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section
306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Ash's felony conviction under
Federal law for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United
States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, was for conduct relating to the
importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance
because he illegally imported, manufactured, repackaged, and then
introduced unapproved clonazolam, diclazepam, flubromazolam, and
etizolam drug products into interstate commerce.
    In proposing a debarment period, FDA weighed the considerations set
forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that it considered
applicable to Mr. Ash's offense, and concluded that the offense
warranted the imposition of a 5-year period of debarment.
    The proposal informed Mr. Ash of the proposed debarment and offered
him an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the
date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised
him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the
opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this
action. Mr. Ash received the proposal and notice of opportunity for a
hearing on March 5, 2021. Mr. Ash failed to request a hearing within
the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his
opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his
debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr.
Justin Ash has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct
relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or
controlled substance. FDA finds that the offense should be accorded a
debarment period of 5 years as provided by section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of
the FD&C Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Ash is debarred for a
period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into
the United States, effective (see DATES). Pursuant to section 301(cc)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(cc)), the importing or offering for
import into the United States of any drug or controlled substance by,
with the assistance of, or at the direction of Mr. Ash is a prohibited
act.
    Any application by Mr. Ash for termination of debarment under
section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be

identified with Docket No. FDA-2020-N-2366 and sent to the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES). The public availability of
information in these submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and
will be viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 19, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16044 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11158-11159]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

March 3, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP06-298-010.
    Applicants: Public Service Commission of New York v. National Fuel
Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits its Semi-
Annual Report of Operational Sales of Gas for 7/1/09-12/31/09.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100128-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 8, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-254-001.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits FERC Gas
tariff, Third Revised Volume 1 and Ninth Revised Sheet 394, to be
effective 3/9/10.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 8, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5063 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 [Federal Register: July 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 144)] [CORRECTIONS]                [Page 43489] [DOCID:fr25jy08-122]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 53, and 58

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735; FRL-8689-2] RIN 2060-AN83

  National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead

Correction

    Proposed rule document E8-15579 beginning on page 39235 in the  issue of Wednesday, July 9, 2008, was inadvertently published in the  Rules and Regulations section. It should have appeared in the Proposed  Rules section.

[FR Doc. Z8-15579 Filed 7-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 65271]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27357]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  [80 FR 64038,
October 22, 2015].

STATUS:  Oral Argument.

PLACE:  100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.

DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED MEETING:  October 26, 2015.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING:  Room Change.
    The Oral Argument scheduled for Monday, October 26, 2015 at 1:00
p.m. will be held in the Closed Commission Hearing (Room 10800).
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 22, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27357 Filed 10-22-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


   Draft RTC Document for Area Source Boilers    Mary Johnson    to:  Higgins, Cortney                                              12/19/2012 12:30 PM                                                             12/19/2012 12:30 PM Cc:  RobertJ Wayland, Jim Eddinger, Jonathan Averback, Thomas Gillis

 From: Mary Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US

 To: "Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

 Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,  Jonathan Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cortney,

Attached is the current draft Response-to-Comment document for Area Source Boilers.  We are still in the process of editing some of the responses but I wanted to provide you with a version now and will provide you with an updated version later today.

Thanks.

Mary

Area Boiler Comment Response Document_12_19_2012.docx

Mary Johnson Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Mail Code D 243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC  27711 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register: April 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16461-16462]
[DOCID:fr01ap10-68]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9133-3]

Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; Request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given
of a proposed settlement agreement, to address a consolidated petition
for review filed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (``NJDEP'') in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit: NJDEP v. Johnson, Nos. 07-0612 and 08-4818 (3rd Cir.).
On July 21, 2006, NJDEP filed an administrative petition seeking an
objection to a permit proposed to be issued under title V of the Act,
42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq., to RRI Energy Mid-Atlantic's Portland
Generating Station in Northampton County, Pennsylvania.\1\ Following
denial of the petition, on September 14, 2007, NJDEP filed a petition
for review of that denial (No. 07-0612) and submitted an administrative
petition for reconsideration of the denial. Following denial of the
petition for reconsideration, NJDEP filed a petition for review of that
denial (No. 08-4818) and the two petitions were consolidated into one
action. On July 23, 2009, NJDEP filed an administrative petition asking
the Administrator to reopen the title V permit for the RRI Energy
Portland plant pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(f)(iii) & (iv). Under the terms
of the proposed settlement agreement, NJDEP

has agreed to dismiss its pending consolidated petition for review, and
EPA has agreed to respond to NJDEP's petition to reopen the permit
within one year after the date when this Agreement becomes final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ At the time of the petition, the name of the company was
``Reliant Energy,'' but the company subsequently changed its name.
To avoid confusion this notice uses the company's current name.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by May 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2009-0987, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Orlin, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    This settlement agreement would resolve pending challenges to EPA's
denial of the title V petition and petition for reconsideration filed
by NJDEP that seek an objection to a permit proposed to be issued by
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to RRI Energy Mid-
Atlantic Power Holdings LLC for its Portland Generating Station in
Pennsylvania. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, EPA
shall make a determination on the petition to reopen the title V permit
filed by NJDEP on July 23, 2009 no later than one year after the date
when this Agreement becomes final. Within 10 days after this Agreement
is finalized, NJDEP and EPA shall file a joint motion for voluntary
dismissal with prejudice of the pending litigation.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the
Department of Justice determines that consent to the settlement
agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the settlement will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Settlement Agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0987) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    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 online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper 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.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. 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. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket 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.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: March 25, 2010.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-7318 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5501]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12667-031]

City of Hamilton, Ohio; American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of
Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and
Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of license to change transmission
line route.
    b. Project No.: 12667-031.
    c. Date Filed: November 30, 2011.
    d. Applicant: City of Hamilton, Ohio and American Municipal Power,
Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Meldahl Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: When constructed, the project will be located at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Captain Anthony Meldahl locks and dam on
the Ohio River, near the City of Augusta, Bracken County, Kentucky.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Debra Roby, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC,
1350 I Street NW., Suite 810, Washington, DC 20005-3305; telephone
(202) 464-0539.
    i. FERC Contact: Linda Stewart, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, and terms and conditions is 30 days from the issuance
of this notice; reply comments are due 55 days from the issuance date
of this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-12667-031) on any
comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The City of Hamilton, Ohio and American
Municipal Power, Inc. (licensees) propose to change the transmission
line route authorized in the June 25, 2008 Order Issuing Original
License (Major Project). Instead of constructing an approximately 5-
mile-long, 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line connecting the
powerhouse to a new switching station adjacent to East Kentucky
Electric Cooperative, Inc.'s Boone-Spurlock transmission line as
authorized in the license, the licensees propose to construct an
approximately 3-mile-long, 138-kV transmission line connecting the
powerhouse to a new switching station at the Zimmer-Spurlock
transmission line in Clermont County, Ohio. The proposed transmission
line route would extend from the powerhouse in Bracken County,
Kentucky, span the Ohio River into Clermont County, Ohio, and then
interconnect with the transmission grid inside the PJM regional
transmission organization.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' or
``TERMS AND CONDITIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations or terms and conditions must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, recommendations or terms and conditions should
relate to project works which are the subject of the license amendment.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: January 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2384 Filed 2-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 129)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36895-36896]
[DOCID:fr06jy07-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0919; FRL-8335-1]

40 CFR Part 81

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Redesignation of the Hampton Roads Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-
Year Inventory; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the rule language of a
final rule pertaining to EPA's approval of the Hampton Roads Area
maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'' or
``our'' are used we mean EPA. On June 1, 2007, (72 FR 30490), we
published a final rulemaking action announcing our approval of the
Hampton Roads Area maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory. In
that document, we inadvertently omitted Gloucester County on the list
of Hampton Roads Cities and Counties in which the Mobile Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) are applicable. We also inadvertently omitted
York County in the Virginia table for the 8-Hour ozone standard
published at 40 CFR 81.347. The intent of the rule was to approve the
maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Hampton Roads
Area. This action corrects the erroneous preamble language and rule.
    In rule document FRL-8320-9 published in the Federal Register on
June 1, 2007 (72 FR 30490), on page 30490 in the third column, the
revised rule language is corrected to read ``As a result of our
finding, the Cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk,
Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and
the Counties of Isle of Wight, James City, Gloucester, and York,
Virginia must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for future conformity determinations.''
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that
there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior
proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting
an incorrect citation in a previous action. Thus, notice and public
procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews:
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section above, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of June 1,
2007. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This correction to the MVEB
applicability and the section 40 CFR 81.347 table for Virginia is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 25, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.347 the table entitled ``Virginia--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Norfolk-Virginia
Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads), VA Area to read as follows:

Sec.  81.347  Virginia.

                                                            Virginia--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Designation a                                         Category/classification
          Designated area           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                        Type                          Date \1\                       Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads), VA Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake City....................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Gloucester County..................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Hampton City.......................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Isle of Wight County...............  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
James City County..................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Newport News City..................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Norfolk City.......................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Poquoson City......................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Portsmouth City....................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Suffolk City.......................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Virginia Beach City................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
Williamsburg City..................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................
York County........................  June 1, 2007..........  Attainment.                        ...........................

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. E7-12998 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 14757]
[DOCID:fr23mr06-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53398A; File No. SR-Amex-2005-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
Relating To Amending Exchange Delisting Rules To Conform to Recent
Amendments to Commission Rules Regarding Removal From Listing and
Withdrawal From Registration

March 17, 2006.

Correction

    In FR Document No. E6-3490, beginning on page 12738 for Monday
March 13, 2006, the release heading in the text of column 2 on page
12738, which provides a description of the release, was incorrectly
stated. The heading should read as follows:
    Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC.; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Relating
to Amending Exchange Delisting Rules to Conform to Recent Amendments to
Commission Rules Regarding Removal from Listing and Withdrawal from
Registration
    Also in FR Document No. E6-3490, beginning on page 12738 for Monday
March 13, 2006, the first full sentence in the text of column 2 on page
12738, which states that the American Stock Exchange, Inc. filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission a proposed rule change, was
incorrectly stated. The sentence should read as follows:
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 24, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC. (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(''Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\3\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-4185 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P