[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31254-31255]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

July 17, 2018 Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: July 17, 2018 DAC Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
July 17, 2018 DAC Meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 17, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Pacific Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Santa Clara Convention
Center, Grand Ballroom, Sections G and H, 5001 Great American Parkway,
Santa Clara, CA 95054.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public may RSVP for
this meeting at [email protected]. For other questions about the
DAC, please visit www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/dac/ or contact
Chris Harm, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Stakeholder and Committee
Liaison, at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given of the July 17, 2018 DAC Meeting. The DAC is a Federal
Advisory Committee managed by the FAA. The agenda will likely include,
but may not be limited to, the following:

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

 Official Statement of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
 Approval of the Agenda
 Chairman's Opening Remarks
 DFO's Opening Remarks
 FAA Update
 Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team Briefing on Safety Data
 Remote Identification
 FAA's UAS Implementation Plan and UAS Integration Research
Plan
 New Business/Agenda Topics
 Closing Remarks
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public. Registration is
required and space is limited. With the approval of the chairman,
members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting.
Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Christopher W. Harm,
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Stakeholder and Committee Liaison, AUS-
10, UAS Integration Office, FAA.
[FR Doc. 2018-14394 Filed 6-29-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48944-48947]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22870]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0580; FRL-9969-81-Region 9]

Contingency Measures for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards; California;
San Joaquin Valley; Correction of Deficiency

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the deficiency that formed the basis for a disapproval
of the contingency measures submitted for the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area for the 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards has been
corrected. The proposed determination is based on the Agency's approval
of revisions to the California State Implementation Plan that include
regulations establishing standards and other requirements relating to
the control of emissions from new on-road and new and in-use off-road
vehicles and engines and a finding that the purposes of the contingency
measure requirement, as applicable to the San Joaquin Valley based on
its initial designation as a nonattainment area for the 1997
PM2.5 standards, have been fulfilled. If finalized as
proposed, the sanctions clocks triggered by the disapproval will be
permanently stopped.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by November 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0580 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Rory Mays
at [email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3227, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Determination and Termination of Sanctions
III. Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Under sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''),
the EPA establishes national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Over the years, the EPA has established NAAQS for particulate matter,
ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
Under CAA section 110, each state must adopt and submit state
implementation plans (SIPs) to implement, maintain, and enforce the
NAAQS within such state. Under CAA section 107, the EPA designates
areas of the country as ``nonattainment'' if the area does not meet a
particular NAAQS or if the area contributes to ambient air quality in a
nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. In response to a
nonattainment designation, states must revise their SIPs to provide
for, among other things, reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment
by the most expeditious date practicable but no later than the
applicable attainment date, and contingency measures in the event the
area fails to meet RFP or attainment by the applicable attainment date.
See, generally, part D of title I of the CAA. Under CAA section 110(k),
the EPA is charged with review of each SIP and SIP revision submitted
by each state for compliance with applicable CAA requirements and for
approval or disapproval (in whole or in part) through notice-and-
comment

rulemaking published in the Federal Register.
    Under CAA section 179(a), disapproval of a required SIP or SIP
revision (in whole or in part) triggers a sanctions clock that runs
from the effective date of the final action. Under 40 CFR 52.31, the
offset sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(2) apply in the nonattainment
area 18 months after the effective date of the disapproval action, and
the highway sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) apply in the area six
months thereafter, unless the state submits, and the EPA approves,
prior to the implementation of the sanctions, a SIP submission that
corrects the deficiencies identified in the disapproval action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The offset sanction applies to New Source Review (NSR)
permits for new major stationary sources or major modifications
proposed in a nonattainment area, and it increases the ratio of
emissions reductions (i.e., offsets) to increased emissions from the
new or modified source, which must be obtained to receive an NSR
permit, to 2 to 1. The highway sanction prohibits, with certain
exceptions, the U.S. Department of Transportation from approving or
funding transportation projects in a nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA established new NAAQS for particles less
than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5),
including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on
a 3-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations.\2\ PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the
atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle (primary PM2.5 or
direct PM2.5) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result
of various chemical reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), volatile
organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary PM2.5).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. Effective
December 18, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144 (October
17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, the EPA
strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering
the level to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40
CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references to the PM2.5
NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour standard
(65 [mu]g/m\3\) and annual standard (15.0 [mu]g/m\3\) as codified in
40 CFR 50.7.
    \3\ See 72 FR 20586 at 20589 (April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective April 5, 2005, the EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley
in California as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\
The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area is located
in the southern half of California's central valley and includes all of
San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings
counties, and the valley portion of Kern County.\5\ The local air
district with primary responsibility for developing SIPs to attain the
NAAQS in this area is the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD or District). Once the District adopts the
regional plan, the District submits the plan to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) for adoption as part of the California SIP. CARB
is the state agency responsible for adopting and revising the
California SIP and for submitting the SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), codified at 40 CFR 81.305.
    \5\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2007 and 2011, CARB made six SIP submittals to address
nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\6\ We refer to these submittals
collectively as the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan.'' On November 9,
2011, the EPA approved all elements of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
except for the contingency measures, which the EPA disapproved for
failure to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9).\7\ In
approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan (i.e., excluding the
contingency measures), we approved an attainment date of April 5, 2015,
but the plan provided a demonstration of attainment in 2014 (i.e., the
calendar year prior to the attainment date), and thus we refer to 2014
as the attainment year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 76 FR 69896 at n.2 (November 9, 2011) (final action on 2008
PM2.5 Plan).
    \7\ Id., at 69924.
    \8\ In connection with the motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) developed for the plan, the EPA approved a trading ratio of
9 tons per day (tpd) of NOX to 1 tpd of direct
PM2.5. See 76 FR 41338, at 41361 (July 13, 2011)
(proposed rule); and 76 FR 69896, at 69924 (November 9, 2011) (final
rule). Later in this document, we rely on the trading ratio to
determine that post-2014 attainment year emissions reductions from
mobile sources are equivalent to approximately one year's worth of
RFP with respect to direct PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(9) requires states with nonattainment areas to
revise the SIP to provide for the implementation of specific measures
to be undertaken if the area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. As the EPA has explained in
guidance to the states regarding the contingency measure requirements
in section 172(c)(9), contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure
that an appropriate level of emission reduction progress continues to
be made if attainment or RFP is not achieved and additional planning by
the state is needed.\9\ The purpose of such measures is to provide a
cushion of emissions reductions while the plan is being revised to meet
the missed milestone.\10\ The contingency measures are to be
implemented in the event that the area does not meet RFP or attain the
NAAQS by the attainment date, and should represent a portion of the
actual emission reductions necessary to bring about attainment in the
area.\11\ Accordingly, the EPA has recommended that the emission
reductions anticipated by the contingency measures should be equal to
approximately one year's worth of emission reductions needed to achieve
RFP for the area.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 57 FR 13498, at 13511 (April 16, 1992).
    \10\ 72 FR 20586, at 20642-20643 (April 25, 2007).
    \11\ Id., at 20643.
    \12\ Id., and 59 FR 41998, at 42014-42015 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contingency measure element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
included several different types of measures including a new commitment
to an action by the District, surplus reductions in the RFP
demonstration, post-2014 emissions reductions, contingency provisions
in an adopted rule, reductions from incentive funds, and reductions
from specifically-identified implemented rules that were not otherwise
relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 9.2 (``Contingency Measures'') in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan; EPA Region 9, Technical Support Document
(TSD) and Responses to Comments, Final Rule on the San Joaquin
Valley 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan, September
30, 2011, pages 126-136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disapproved the contingency measure element of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan because the submittal failed to meet the
requirements of section 172(c)(9) because, while some of the individual
measures appeared to have merit for contingency measure purposes, the
plan failed to provide sufficient information for the EPA to determine
whether the emissions reductions from those individual measures that
were creditable for contingency measure purposes provided for roughly
one year's worth of RFP in excess of the 2012 RFP milestone target or
in the year following the 2014 attainment year.\14\ More specifically,
based on the emissions estimates in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, one
year's worth of RFP was calculated to be 31.6 tons per day (tpd) of
NOX, 2.5 tpd of direct PM2.5, and 0.2 tpd of
SOX. While the plan provided sufficient information with
respect to SOX, the plan did not provide sufficient

information with respect to NOX and direct
PM2.5.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ One year's worth of RFP is the yardstick the EPA has cited
historically as the approximate quantity of emissions reductions
that contingency measures must provide to satisfy CAA section
172(c)(9). See the EPA's September 30, 2011 TSD, pages 133-134.
    \15\ See Table 10 on page 41359 of the EPA's proposed action on
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 76 FR 41338 (July 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several environmental and community organizations filed a petition
for review challenging the EPA's November 9, 2011 approval of the
attainment demonstration and reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, arguing, among other
things, that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan had calculated the
necessary emissions reductions and forecasts in part based on state-
adopted mobile source measures that were not themselves incorporated
into the federally enforceable plan, in violation of the CAA. The court
case is known as Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, Case No. 11-73924
(9th Cir.). At that time, the EPA's longstanding and consistent
practice had been to allow California SIPs to rely on emission
reduction credit for state mobile source rules waived or authorized by
the EPA under section 209 of the Act (``waiver measures'') to meet
certain SIP requirements, including RFP, attainment and contingency
measures, without requiring approval of those control measures into the
SIP under section 110 of the Act.
    On July 3, 2013, CARB made a new submittal to meet the contingency
measure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley (``2013 Contingency Measure SIP'') and to correct the
deficiencies identified in the EPA's November 2011 action disapproving
the contingency measure element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.\16\
The 2013 Contingency Measure SIP contained the District's demonstration
that actual emission levels in the San Joaquin Valley in 2012 were
below the milestone year targets identified in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan that had been approved by the EPA for the 2012
RFP year, and identified contingency measures that provided 2015 (i.e.,
post-2014 attainment year) emission reductions not relied on for RFP or
attainment that were equivalent to one year's worth of RFP. The
specific measures that were relied upon included CARB's mobile source
measures, the District's residential wood burning control measure
(District Rule 4901), the District's implementation of incentive
programs, and substitution of surplus direct PM2.5
reductions for NOX reductions.\17\ CARB's mobile source
measures (and associated vehicle fleet turnover) were credited with
providing 65 percent of the contingency-related emissions reductions in
2015 for NOX. The District's residential wood burning
control measure, implementation of incentive measures, and substitution
ratio were credited as providing the rest of the emissions reductions
needed for NOX and the necessary quantity of reductions for
direct PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 78 FR 53313 at 53115-53116 (August 28, 2013) (proposed
action on the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP).
    \17\ SJVUAPCD, ``Quantification of Contingency Reductions for
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,'' June 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 22, 2014, the EPA fully approved the 2013 Contingency
Measure SIP based on the Agency's conclusion that the SIP submittal
corrected the outstanding deficiencies in the CAA section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\18\ In its
May 22, 2014 final action on the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP, the EPA
determined that the requirement for contingency measures for failure to
meet RFP requirements was moot because the District had already met the
RFP requirements relevant to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan by the time
of EPA's May 22, 2014 action.\19\ With respect to the requirement for
contingency measures for failure to attain, the EPA determined that
CARB's continuing implementation of the mobile source control measures
in 2015, together with other fully-adopted measures implemented by the
District in the same timeframe, would provide for an appropriate level
of continued emission reduction progress should the San Joaquin Valley
fail to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, thereby meeting the requirement for contingency
measures for failure to attain.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014) (final action on the 2013
Contingency Measure SIP).
    \19\ 79 FR 29327 at 29350.
    \20\ 78 FR 53113 at 53123 and 79 FR 29327 at 29350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the EPA's 2014 action, there was not yet a decision
in the Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA challenge to our 2011
approval. Environmental and community organizations filed a petition
for review of the EPA's May 22, 2014 action on the 2013 Contingency
Measure SIP. They again argued that the EPA violated the CAA by
approving that submittal even though it did not include the waiver
measures on which it relied to achieve the necessary emissions
reductions to meet contingency measure requirements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA, Case No. 14-72219
(9th Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued its decision in Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA. The court
held that the EPA violated the CAA by approving the 2008
PM2.5 Plan even though the SIP did not include the waiver
measures on which the plan relied to achieve its emission reduction
goals.\22\ The court rejected the EPA's arguments supporting the
Agency's longstanding practice, finding that section 110(a)(2)(A) of
the Act plainly mandates that all control measures on which states rely
to attain the NAAQS must be ``included'' in the SIP and subject to
enforcement by the EPA and citizens. The court remanded the EPA's
November 9, 2011 action for further proceedings consistent with the
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th
Cir. 2015) (``Committee for a Better Arvin'') (partially granting
and partially denying petition for review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 10, 2015, the EPA filed an unopposed motion for voluntary
remand of the May 22, 2014 final rule without vacatur based, inter
alia, on the Agency's substantial and legitimate need to reexamine this
rulemaking in light of the Ninth Circuit's May 20, 2015 decision in
Committee for a Better Arvin. On June 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit
granted the EPA's motion and remanded the final rule to the EPA.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA, Case No. 14-72219
(9th Cir.), Order, Docket Entry 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On remand, consistent with the court's ruling in Committee for a
Better Arvin, we withdrew our May 22, 2014 approval of the 2013
Contingency Measure SIP because it was predicated on an interpretation
of the CAA that the Court rejected as being inconsistent with the
CAA.\24\ In that same action, we disapproved the 2013 Contingency
Measure SIP for failure to satisfy the requirements of section
179(c)(9) of the Act because of the reliance on California waiver
measures that the EPA had not approved into the California SIP.\25\ The
disapproval action became effective on June 13, 2016 and started a
sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after June
13, 2016 and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to CAA section
179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. As a result, offset sanctions
would apply on December 13, 2017 and highway sanctions would apply on
June 13, 2018, unless the EPA were to determine that the deficiency
forming the basis of the disapproval has been corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 81 FR 29498 (May 12, 2016).
    \25\ Id., at 29500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 14, 2015, CARB submitted a SIP revision consisting of
certain state regulations establishing standards and other requirements
relating to the control of emissions from new on-road and new and in-
use off-road vehicles and engines. The regulations submitted on August
14, 2015 had previously been

issued waivers or had been authorized by the EPA under CAA section 209,
and constitute the ``waiver measures'' relied upon in California air
quality plans to reduce emissions and meet various nonattainment area
requirements, such as RFP, attainment, and contingency measures. The
regulations cover a wide range of mobile sources, including on-road
passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles; in-use transport refrigeration
units, off-road diesel-fueled fleets, and portable diesel-fueled
engines; commercial harbor craft, auxiliary diesel engines on ocean-
going vessels, and spark-ignition marine engines and boats; off-road
large spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines; and mobile cargo
handling equipment, small off-road engines, and off-highway
recreational vehicles and engines.\26\ On June 16, 2016, the EPA took
final action to approve the mobile source regulations and incorporate
them as part of the federally-enforceable California SIP.\27\ Since the
2014 attainment year, the waiver measures and related vehicle fleet
turnover have reduced emissions from mobile sources in the San Joaquin
Valley by 44.5 tpd of NOX and 1.5 tpd of direct
PM2.5.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 81 FR 39424, at 39424-39428 (June 16, 2016).
    \27\ 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016). Later in 2016, CARB submitted
a second set of mobile source regulations waived or authorized by
the EPA under CAA section 209, including regulations establish new
or revised standards and other requirements relating to the control
of emissions from such sources as on-road heavy-duty trucks, off-
road large spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines, and
small off-road engines. The EPA recently took final action to
approve CARB's second set of mobile source regulations as a revision
to the California SIP. 82 FR 1446 (March 21, 2017).
    \28\ Emissions projections for the San Joaquin Valley were made
using CARB's criteria emissions model, ``CEPAM: 2016 SIP--Standard
Emission Tool,'' for years 2014 and 2017 using a base year of 2012,
reflecting growth and control factors, and representing tpd on an
annual average basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Determination and Termination of Sanctions

    The EPA's approval into the SIP of the comprehensive set of
California waiver measures on June 16, 2016 as described above
addresses the specific deficiency that formed the basis of our May 12,
2016 disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP. In addition, the
emissions reductions from the SIP-approved waiver measures have
achieved post-attainment year emission reductions equivalent to
approximately one year's worth of RFP as calculated for the 2008
PM2.5 Plan,\29\ and are thereby providing for sufficient
progress towards attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards
while a new attainment plan is being prepared.\30\ Therefore, we find
that the purpose of the contingency measure requirement, as applicable
to the San Joaquin Valley based on the area's designation in 2005 for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, have been fulfilled. Accordingly, we
are proposing to determine that the deficiency that formed the basis
for the disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP has been
corrected. If finalized as proposed, the determination would
permanently stop the sanctions clocks triggered by the disapproval. See
CAA section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Emissions reductions of NOX exceed those
necessary for NOX for contingency measures purposes (44.5
tpd achieved - 31.6 tpd needed) and provide excess emissions
reductions sufficient to cover the shortfall of 1.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 (2.5 tpd needed - 1.5 tpd achieved) by applying the
trading ratio of 9 tpd of NOX to 1 tpd of direct
PM2.5 that the EPA approved for the MVEBs in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan.
    \30\ In response to the EPA's determination of failure to attain
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 81 FR 84481 (November 23, 2016),
the District and CARB are preparing a new attainment demonstration
with new contingency measures for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
for the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Public Comment

    For the next 30 days, we will accept comments from the public on
this proposal to determine that the deficiency that formed the basis of
our disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP has been corrected
by the approval of the waiver measures as a revision to the California
SIP and the finding that the waiver measures have achieved post-2014
attainment year emissions reductions sufficient to fulfill the purposes
of the contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9). The
deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this preamble.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed action makes a determination that a deficiency that
is the basis for sanctions has been corrected and imposes no additional
requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides,
Particulate matter.

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

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
Douglas Luehe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-22870 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24305-24306]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11311]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314; FRL-9978-42]

Letter Peer Reviews for Exposure and Use Assessment and Human
Health and Environmental Hazard Summary for Five PBT Chemicals; Notice
of Public Preparatory Meeting and Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a half-day preparatory meeting for experts
selected to serve as letter peer reviewers for EPA's Exposure and Use
Assessment and Human Health and Environmental Hazard Summary for Five
PBT chemicals. The preparatory meeting will be held via teleconference
and webcast only. Registration is required to attend.

DATES: The preparatory meeting will be held on June 25, 2018, from
approximately 1:00 p.m. (EDT) to 5:00 p.m.
    Comments. Requests to present oral comments during the preparatory
meeting should be submitted on or before June 21, 2018. Written
comments to be considered by the peer reviewers may be submitted until
July 23, 2018. Though the peer reviewers may not be able to fully
consider written comments submitted after July 23, 2018, EPA will
consider all comments submitted on or before August 17, 2018. For
additional instructions, contact the Peer Review Leader listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Webcast. This preparatory meeting will be conducted via
teleconference and webcast only. Registration is required.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the Peer Review Leader listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the preparatory
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES:
    Meeting: The preparatory meeting will be held via teleconference
and webcast only. For additional information, please contact the Peer
Review Leader listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPPT Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson, Ph.D., Peer Review
Leader, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture,
processing, distribution, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks
involving chemical substances and mixtures. Since other entities may
also

be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the
specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the Peer
Review Leader listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain
special instructions before submitting your comments.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

C. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this preparatory meeting by following the
instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is
imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314 in
the subject line on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages written comments be
submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES and Unit I.B., on or
before July 23, 2018, to provide the letter peer reviewers the time
necessary to consider and review the written comments. Though the peer
reviewers may not be able to fully consider written comments submitted
after July 23, 2018, EPA will consider all comments submitted on or
before August 17, 2018.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages each individual or group
wishing to present brief oral comments to the letter peer reviewers
during the preparatory meeting to submit their request to the peer
review leader listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before
June 21, 2018, in order to be included on the preparatory meeting
agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual making
the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will
represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment. Oral
comments are limited to approximately 5 minutes due to the time
constraints of the preparatory meeting.

II. Background

A. Letter Peer Review

    Section 6(h) of the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs
EPA to issue regulations under 6(a) for certain Persistent
Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) chemical substances that were
identified in EPA's TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014
update. The chemicals that were ranked high or moderate for either
persistence and bioaccumulation, are present on the TSCA 2014 workplan
chemical list that are not metals, that do not have problem formulation
completed, do not have a review under section 5, and do not have a
consent agreement under section 4 are the following five chemicals:
Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DECA); Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD);
Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP); Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1)
(PIP3/ITPP); and 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl) phenol (2, 4, 6 TRIS).
    No risk evaluation is required for these PBT chemicals. EPA has
drafted an Exposure and Use Assessment and a Human Health and
Environmental Hazard Summary, in response to the TSCA section 6(h)
requirements to summarize conclusions of toxicity and whether there is
likely exposure to these PBT chemicals. These documents contain the
following components:
     Chemistry, physical-chemical properties and expected
transport and partitioning.
     Characterization of manufacture (including import),
processing, uses and potential sources of exposure.
     Summary of available monitoring data, concentrations and
doses.
     Characterization of trends in releases/exposures over
time.
     Summary of environmental hazard (written and tabular
summaries).
     Summary of human health hazard (written and tabular
summaries).
     Strategy for identifying environmental hazard summary
information.
     Strategy for identifying human health summary information.
     Supplemental Files that identify how environmental
information was searched, screened, and evaluated.

B. Public Preparatory Meeting

    The Agency has organized letter peer reviews for the Exposure and
Use Assessment and the Human Health and Environmental Hazard Summary.
The June 25, 2018 preparatory meeting will be held by teleconference
and webcast only. During the preparatory meeting, the individual letter
peer reviewers will have the opportunity to comment on and ask
questions regarding the scope and clarity of the draft charge
questions. Subsequent to this preparatory meeting, final charge
questions will be provided for use as the letter peer reviewers
complete their individual reviews.

C. Letter Peer Review Documents

    EPA's background papers, related supporting materials, and charge/
questions for these letter peer reviews will be available in the public
docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314) on June 18, 2018. In addition, the
Agency may provide additional background documents and public comments
as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of
these documents, and certain other related documents that might be
available in the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov and on the
TSCA Peer Review website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625 et. seq.; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et. seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018.
Stanley Barone, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-11311 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27031-27032]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventy Eighth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 147, Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 147, Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Seventy Eighth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 147, Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 3-5, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Boeing, Classroom 35 (22L18),
Building 25-01, 1301 SW. 16th St., Renton, WA 98057.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 147. The agenda will
include the following:

June 3

 All day, Surveillance Working Group
 All day, Threat Working Group

June 4

 All day, Surveillance Working Group
 All day, Threat Working Group

June 5

 Opening Plenary Session
    [cir] Chairmen's Opening Remarks/Introductions
    [cir] Approval of Minutes from 78th meeting of SC-147
    [cir] Approval of Agenda
    [cir] Update from Eurocontrol/WG-75
 Interaction with SC 228--MOPS for Unmanned Aerial Systems
    [cir] Approval of SC-228/SC-147 ISRA
    [cir] Status update and feedback from SC 228 plenary briefing
 SESAR Activity Updates
    [cir] Update on SESAR work update & progress (4.8.2/9.47)--TBD
 RTCA Involvement in Run 13 Tuning Process
    [cir] Lunch (12:15-01:00)
 Report from WG-1 (Surveillance and Tracking) on progress on
the ACAS X MOPS
    [cir] Report from CSG
    [cir] TA/RA Downlink Proposal
 Report from WG-2 (Threat Resolution) on progress on the ACAS X
MOPS
 Kickoff of ACAS X Safety WG
 Additional business
 New Business
 Closing Session
    [cir] Next Meeting Location
    [cir] Action Item review
    [cir] End Meeting
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the
public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2014.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-10885 Filed 5-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 8 (Friday, January 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2394]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00368]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-32-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on December 19, 2012, Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC (Columbia), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056,
filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.210, and
157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) for authorization to abandon and relocate a compressor from its
Adaline Compressor Station located in Marshall County, WV to its Seneca
Compressor Station located in Pendleton County, WV. Columbia also seeks
authorization to abandon by removal an existing 6,200 horsepower
compressor unit at its Seneca Compressor Station. Columbia estimates
the cost of the proposed activities to be approximately $6.4 million,
all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
Fredric J. George, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, PO
Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273, by telephone at (304)
357-2359, or by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: January 4, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00368 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 9, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-6322

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  XABRE AEROLINEAS, S.A. de C.V.
                                Date Filed: June 26, 2002

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  June 27, 2001

Applicant representative(s):  Irwin P. Altschuler and Donald S. Stein,
202-463-4300

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
         Action date:  August 9, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  August 9, 2002, through August 9,
2003.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of
thi⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗
瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯
愮灳


[Federal Register: April 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 17193-17196]
[DOCID:fr05ap10-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61802; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto,
Relating to Professional Orders

March 30, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On January 12, 2010, the NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder \2\ to amend the Exchange's priority rules to treat certain
non-broker-dealers in the same manner as off-floor broker-dealers with
respect to priority. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on February 2, 2010.\3\ The Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on March 26, 2010.\4\ The
Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on March 30,
2010.\5\ This order provides notice of Amendment No. 2 and approves the
proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61426 (January 26,
2010), 75 FR 5360 (February 2, 2010) (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 replaces and supersedes Amendment No. 1 in
its entirety.
    \5\ Amendment No. 2 adds Phlx Rule 1033(e), which provides for
public customer priority in synthetic options orders in open outcry,
and Options Floor Procedure Advices (``Advices'') B-6, B-11 and F-5
to the list of Phlx rules in which a Professional (as defined below)
would be treated in the same manner as an off-floor broker-dealer.
In Amendment No. 2, Phlx also clarifies that Professional orders may
be considered customer orders subject to facilitation for purposes
of Phlx Rule 1064.02, and corrects a technical error by revising the
reference to Advice C-3 to Advice C-2. Phlx further states in this
amendment that it would issue a notice outlining the procedures for
the implementation of the proposal. Amendment No. 2 also deletes a
sentence in the Purpose section of the proposal, in which the
Exchange stated that Professional orders would be subject to the
same transactions fees as customers today; changes ``may'' to
``will'' in the parenthetical regarding the definition of
``professional'' for Phlx Rule 1064.02; and changes ``five days'' to
``five business days'' in footnote 8 in the Purpose Section and the
Exhibit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Phlx's Proposal

    Phlx proposes to adopt a new term, ``professional,'' which would be
defined in paragraph (b)(14) of Phlx Rule 1000

as a person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities,
and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s)
(``Professional''). Under the proposal, a Professional would be treated
in the same manner as an off-floor broker-dealer for purposes of
certain order execution rules of the Exchange. Specifically, the orders
of Professionals generally would be treated like off-floor broker-
dealer orders for the purposes of Phlx Rules 1014(g), which governs,
among other things, the allocation of orders and, thus, priority and
parity among orders and quotations; \6\ 1033(e), concerning synthetic
options orders; and 1064.02, concerning facilitation orders and firm
participation guarantees; \7\ in addition to other, mostly conforming
changes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An exception is made, however, with respect to all-or-none
orders, which would be treated like customer orders.
    \7\ Professional orders, however, would be considered customer
orders subject to facilitation.
    \8\ These include changes to Rule 1080.08, concerning complex
orders, as well as to Advices B-6, B-11 and F-5. The Exchange is
also proposing to amend Rule 1063(e) and the corresponding Advice C-
2, Options Floor Broker Management System, to require Floor Brokers
to record a ``Professional'' designator in the Floor Broker
Management System. See also infra, note 10. Advice C-2 is part of
the Exchange's minor rule plan. See Phlx Rule 970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, Professionals would participate in Phlx's
allocation process on equal terms with off-floor broker-dealers--i.e.,
Professionals would not receive priority over broker-dealers in the
allocation of orders on the Exchange. The Exchange states that the
proposal would not otherwise affect non-broker-dealer individuals or
entities under Phlx rules. All customer orders, including non-broker-
dealer orders included in the definition of ``Professional'' orders,
would continue to be treated equally for purposes of the Exchange's
rules concerning routing of orders and order protection.\9\ The
Exchange, which currently routes only eligible customer orders, would
route eligible Professional orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Phlx Rules 1080(m), 1083, 1084, and 1086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposal would require members to indicate whether
customer orders are Professional orders.\10\ To comply with this
requirement, member organizations would be required to review their
customers' activity on at least a quarterly basis to determine whether
orders that are not for the account of a broker-dealer should be
represented as customer orders or Professional orders.\11\ The Exchange
states that it intends to file a separate proposed rule change to adopt
fees for professional orders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Phlx Rule 1000(b)(14). The Exchange states that it
intends to utilize a special order origin code for Professional
orders. The Exchange also proposes to disseminate the Professional
designator over its new Top of Phlx Options Plus Orders, which
includes disseminated Exchange top-of-market data (including orders,
quotes and trades) together with all of the data currently available
on the Specialized Order Feed. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 60877 (October 26, 2009), 74 FR 56255 (October 30, 2009) (SR-
Phlx-2009-92).
    \11\ Orders for any customer that had an average of more than
390 orders per day during any month of a calendar quarter would be
required to be represented as Professional orders for the next
calendar quarter. Member organizations would be required to conduct
a quarterly review and make any appropriate changes to the way in
which they are representing orders within five business days after
the end of each calendar quarter. While member organizations would
only be required to review their accounts on a quarterly basis, if
during a quarter the Exchange identifies a customer for which orders
are being represented as customer orders but that has averaged more
than 390 orders per day during a month, the Exchange would notify
the member organization and the member organization would be
required to change the manner in which it is representing the
customer's orders within five business days. See Notice, supra note
3 at 5361, n. 8.
    \12\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 4 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Findings and Order Granting Approval of the Proposed
Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 2

    After careful consideration of the proposed rule change, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with section 6(b) \13\ of the Act and the rules
thereunder,\14\ and in particular with:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange, among other things, be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest; and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers;\15\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires the rules of an exchange
not to impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, customers who place orders on the
level of frequency specified in proposed Phlx Rule 1000(b)(14) would be
deemed Professionals and would no longer receive the priority treatment
currently granted to all public customers. The Commission has
previously approved similar proposals to give the orders of certain
customers, identified as ``Professional Orders'' \17\ or
``Professionals'',\18\ no greater priority than that given to broker-
dealer orders.\19\ Under the Professional Customer Approval Orders, the
orders of public customers that are deemed Professional orders are no
longer accorded the priority granted to the orders of all other public
customers.\20\ While Phlx Rule 1000(b)(14) differs slightly from the
rules adopted in the Professional Customer Approval Orders, the
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed rule change is
comparable to rules of the ISE and CBOE, which the Commission found to
be consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') Rule
100(a)(37C).
    \18\ See Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
Rule 1.1 (ggg).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23,
2009), 74 FR 5694 (January 30, 2009) (``ISE Approval Order''); 61198
(December 17, 2009), 74 FR 68880 (December 29, 2009) (``CBOE
Approval Order'') (together, the ``Professional Customer Approval
Orders'').
    \20\ See ISE Approval Order, supra note 19 and CBOE Approval
Order, supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ISE Approval Order, the Commission reviewed the background
and history of customer order priority rules on national securities
exchanges, and analyzed the role played in the shaping of these rules
by various considerations and principles. In this regard, the
Commission discussed the requirement of section 6(b)(5) of the Act that
the rules of an exchange be designed to protect investors and the
public interest; traditional notions of customer priority in exchange
trading; the agency obligations of exchange specialists; and the
requirements of section 11(a) of the Act.\21\ In approving the ISE
proposal, the Commission articulated its view that priority for public
customer orders is not an essential attribute of an exchange,\22\ and
noted that in the past it has approved trading rules at options
exchanges that do not give priority to orders of public customers that
are priced no better than the orders of other market participants.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ISE Approval Order, supra note 16. For a brief synopsis of
the requirements of Section 11(a), see infra, note 25.
    \22\ See ISE Approval Order, supra note 19, at 5697.
    \23\ See ISE Approval Order, supra note 19, at 5697, n. 41-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ISE Approval Order, the Commission concluded that section
6(b)(5) of the Act does not require an exchange to treat the orders of
public

customers who place orders at the frequency of more than 390 orders per
day on average identically to the orders of public customers who do not
meet that threshold.\24\ For the same reason, the Commission believes
that Phlx's proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See ISE Approval Order, supra note 19, at 5697. See also
CBOE Approval Order, supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that its view with respect to the ISE
Approval Order is equally applicable to the Phlx proposal. In this
regard, the Commission does not believe that the Act requires that the
orders of a public customer or any other market participant be granted
priority. Historically, in developing their trading and business
models, exchanges have adopted rules, with Commission approval, that
grant priority to certain participants over others, in order to attract
order flow or to create more competitive markets. However, the Act does
not entitle any participant to priority as a right. The requirement of
section 6(b)(8) of the Act that the rules of an exchange not impose an
unnecessary or inappropriate burden upon competition does not
necessarily mandate that a Professional (as defined in the Phlx
proposal) be granted priority at a time that a broker-dealer is not
granted the same right. The Phlx proposal simply restores the treatment
of persons who would be deemed Professionals to a base line where no
special priority benefits are granted.\25\ Thus, the Commission
believes that it is consistent with the Act for Phlx to amend its rules
so that Professional orders, like the orders of broker-dealers, are not
granted special priority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In its proposal, the Exchange addressed compliance with
Section 11(a) of the Act and the rules thereunder as applied to the
Exchange's electronic trading platform, Phlx XL II. Section 11(a)
prohibits a member of a national securities exchange from effecting
transactions on that exchange for its own account, the account of an
associated person, or an account over which it or its associated
person exercises discretion unless an exception applies. Section
11(a)(1) and the rules thereunder contain a number of exceptions for
principal transactions by members and their associated persons,
including the exceptions in subparagraph (G) of Section 11(a)(1) and
in Rule 11a1-1(T), as well as Rule 11a2-2(T) under the Act. The
Exchange represents that, as applied to Phlx XL II, it does not
believe that the proposal would affect the availability of the
exceptions to Section 11(a) of the Act, including the exceptions in
subparagraph (G) of Section 11(a) and in Rules 11a1-1(T) and 11a2-
2(T), as are currently available. See Notice, supra note 3.
    \26\ The Commission notes that certain trading practices that
could be affected by the proposed rule change may raise issues
outside the scope of its review of the proposal itself.
Specifically, any entity that acts as ``dealer,'' as defined in
Section 3(a)(5) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(5), is required to
register with the Commission under Section 15 of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
78o, and the rules and regulations thereunder, or qualify for any
exception or exemption from registration. Activity that may cause a
person to be deemed a dealer includes ```quoting a market in or
publishing quotes for securities (other than quotes on one side of
the market on a quotations system generally available to non-broker-
dealers, such as a retail screen broker for government
securities).'' See Definitions of Terms in and Specific Exemptions
for Banks, Savings Associations, and Savings Banks Under Sections
3(a)(4) and 3(a)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47364, 68 FR 8686, 8689, note 26
(February 24, 2003) (quoting OTC Derivatives Dealers, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23, 1998), 63 FR 59362,
59370, note 61 (November 3, 1998)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\27\ the Commission may not
approve any proposed rule change, or amendment thereto, prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of notice of the filing thereof,
unless the Commission finds good cause for so doing and publishes its
reasons for so finding. The Commission hereby finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2,
before the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of filing
thereof in the Federal Register.\28\ The Commission notes that the
proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on February
2, 2010. The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed
rule change. The Commission does not believe that Amendment No. 2
significantly alters the proposal. In the amendment, the Exchange
deleted an Exchange rule from and added several Exchange rules and
Advices to the list of rules that would be affected by the proposal;
identified in one instance where a specific provision of a rule would
be affected by the proposal; and made a few technical or clarifying
changes to the rule text, Purpose section, and/or Exhibit to the
proposed rule change. The Commission believes that these revisions are
consistent with the proposal's purpose and raise no new significant
issues. The amendment also indicated that the Phlx intends to file a
separate proposed rule change to adopt fees for Professional orders.
Finally, Phlx noted that it would issue a notice outlining the
procedures for implementation of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \28\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission previously found that exchange rules
that distinguish between the orders of customers who place orders at
the frequency of more than 390 orders per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) and the orders of
customers who do not meet that threshold are consistent with the
Act.\29\ Accordingly, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\30\ the
Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Professional Customer Approval Orders, supra note 19.
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\31\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will

be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-05 and should be submitted on
or before April 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/
NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\32\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2010-05), as modified
by Amendment No. 2, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7630 Filed 4-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52230-52231]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the bi-annual meeting of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACF) to
discuss informational content and design of aeronautical charts and
related products, as well as instrument flight procedures development
policy and design criteria.

DATES: The ACF is separated into two distinct groups. The Instrument
Procedures Group (IPG) will meet October 29, 2013 from 8:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. The Charting Group will meet October 30 and 31, 2013 from
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be hosted by the Air Line Pilots
Association at 535 Herndon Parkway, Herndon, VA 20192.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information relating to the
Instrument Procedures Group, contact Thomas E. Schneider, FAA, Flight
Procedures Standards Branch, AFS-420, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., P.O.
Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information relating to the Charting Group, contact Valerie S.
Watson, FAA, National Aeronautical Navigation Products (AeroNav
Products), Quality Assurance & Regulatory Support, AJV-3B, 1305 East-
West Highway, SSMC4, Station 3409, Silver Spring, MD 20910; telephone:
(301) 427-5155; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Sec.  10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is
hereby given of a meeting of the FAA Aeronautical Charting Forum to be
held from October 29 through October 31, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. at the Air Line Pilots Association, at their offices at 535
Herndon Parkway, Herndon, VA 20192.
    The Instrument Procedures Group agenda will include briefings and
discussions on recommendations regarding pilot procedures for
instrument flight, as well as criteria, design, and developmental
policy for instrument approach and departure procedures.
    The Charting Group agenda will include briefings and discussions on
recommendations regarding aeronautical charting specifications, flight
information products, and new aeronautical charting and air traffic
control initiatives. Attendance is open to the interested public, but
will be limited to the space available.
    The public must make arrangements by October 9, 2013, to present
oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written
statements and/or new agenda items to the committee by providing a copy
to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section not
later than October 9, 2013.

Public statements will only be considered if time permits.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 2013.
Valerie S. Watson,
Co-Chair, Aeronautical Charting Forum.
[FR Doc. 2013-20450 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13729-13731]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1470-012; ER18-836-005; ER16-1833-007; ER10-
3026-010.
    Applicants: Termoelectrica U.S., LLC, Sempra Gas & Power Marketing,
LLC, Energia Sierra Juarez 2 U.S., LLC, Energia Sierra Juarez U.S.,
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Energia Sierra Juarez
U.S., LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5227.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-41-006; ER14-42-006; ER16-498-005; ER16-499-
005; ER16-500-005; ER20-547-005; ER20-2448-001; ER21-133-001; ER21-736-
002; ER21-1962-002.
    Applicants: Mulberry BESS LLC, RE Slate 1 LLC, HDSI, LLC, American
Kings Solar, LLC, Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Marketing LLC, RE
Mustang 4 LLC, RE Mustang 3 LLC, RE Mustang LLC, RE Rosamond Two LLC,
RE Rosamond One LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Goldman
Sachs Renewable Power Marketing LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1418-014; ER15-1883-014; ER19-1073-006; ER21-
2304-002; ER21-2294-002; ER22-415-002; ER18-2118-012; ER19-2373-007;
ER10-2005-024; ER11-26-024; ER20-2179-006; ER21-1990-002; ER16-91-014;
ER16-632-013; ER20-819-007; ER20-820-006; ER21-2674-001; ER16-2453-017;
ER16-2191-016; ER16-2190-016; ER15-1925-020; ER19-2901-007; ER10-1841-
024; ER15-2582-010; ER18-1978-009; ER15-2676-019; ER20-2049-004; ER20-
1980-005; ER20-1987-006; ER16-1672-017; ER20-1769-005; ER13-712-028;
ER18-1863-009; ER21-1519-001; ER17-804-001; ER17-2152-013; ER20-122-
005; ER19-2461-007; ER19-987-011; ER19-1003-011; ER21-1320-002; ER20-
1986-004; ER13-1991-019; ER13-1992-019; ER21-2118-002; ER19-2269-006;
ER22-381-002; ER18-1534-009; ER18-882-012; ER10-1849-026; ER21-1682-
001; ER19-2437-007; ER19-1393-011; ER19-1394-011; ER13-752-016; ER12-
2227-025; ER10-1851-015; ER21-1879-002; ER21-2293-002; ER10-1852-057;
ER10-1857-017.

    Applicants: FPL Energy Cape, LLC, Florida Power & Light Company,
Fish Springs Ranch Solar, LLC, Farmington Solar, LLC, ESI Vansycle
Partners, L.P., Ensign Wind, LLC, Energy Storage Holdings, LLC,
Endeavor Wind II, LLC, Endeavor Wind I, LLC, Emmons-Logan Wind, LLC,
Elora Solar, LLC, Elk City Wind, LLC, Elk City Renewables II, LLC, East
Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC, Dunns Bridge Solar Center, LLC,
Dougherty County Solar, LLC, Dodge Flat Solar, LLC, Desert Sunlight
300, LLC, Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Day County Wind I, LLC, Crystal
Lake Wind Energy III, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind Energy II, LLC, Crystal
Lake Wind Energy I, LLC, Crowned Ridge Wind, LLC, Crowned Ridge
Interconnection, LLC, Cottonwood Wind Project, LLC, Coram California
Development, L.P., Cool Springs Solar, LLC, Coolidge Solar I, LLC,
Cimarron Wind Energy, LLC, Chicot Solar, LLC, Chaves County Solar, LLC,
Cerro Gordo Wind, LLC, Cedar Springs Wind, LLC, Cedar Springs Wind III,
LLC, Cedar Bluff Wind, LLC, Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, Carousel Wind Farm,
LLC, Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC, Bronco Plains Wind, LLC,
Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC, Brady Wind, LLC, Brady Wind II, LLC,
Brady Interconnection, LLC, Borderlands Wind, LLC, Blythe Solar IV,
LLC, Blythe Solar III, LLC, Blythe Solar II, LLC, Blythe Solar 110,
LLC, Blackwell Wind Energy, LLC, Baldwin Wind Energy, LLC, Ashtabula
Wind III, LLC, Ashtabula Wind II, LLC, Ashtabula Wind I, LLC ,Armadillo
Flats Wind Project, LLC, Arlington Energy Center III, LLC, Arlington
Energy Center II, LLC, Arlington Solar, LLC, Alta Wind VIII, LLC,
Adelanto Solar, LLC, Adelanto Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of NextEra Companies, et
al. (Part 1 of 4).
    Filed Date: 3/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220302-5298.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-581-009; ER16-582-009; ER16-2271-008; ER17-
1370-008; ER19-828-005; ER20-539-005; ER20-1338-004; ER20-2505-003;
ER21-1254-003; ER21-1498-001; ER21-2204-002.
    Applicants: ENGIE Power & Gas LLC, Hawtree Creek Farm Solar, LLC,
Genbright LLC, Triple H Wind Project, LLC, King Plains Wind Project,
LLC, East Fork Wind Project, LLC, Solomon Forks Wind Project, LLC,
ENGIE Energy Marketing NA, Inc., ENGIE Resources LLC, ENGIE Retail,
LLC, ENGIE Portfolio Management, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of ENGIE Portfolio
Management, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1531-006.
    Applicants: CPV Fairview, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of CPV Fairview, LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1863-010; ER10-1852-058; ER10-1857-018; ER10-
1935-019; ER10-1932-018; ER13-2147-005; ER11-4462-059; ER17-838-034;
ER10-1973-016; ER10-1951-037; ER10-1974-027; ER21-183-002; ER20-2153-
005; ER21-744-002.
    Applicants: Wallingford Renewable Energy LLC, Sanford Airport
Solar, LLC, Nutmeg Solar, LLC, Northeast Energy Associates, L.P.,
NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, NextEra Energy Seabrook,
LLC, NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC, NEPM II, LLC, Frontier Utilities
New York LLC, FPL Energy Wyman, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman IV, LLC, FPL
Energy Cape, LLC, Florida Power & Light Company, Coolidge Solar I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Coolidge Solar I, LLC,
et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2511-002.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of NorthWestern
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2269-000; ER19-2269-005; ER10-1852-000; ER18-
1952-000; ER16-1354-000; ER11-4462-000; ER17-838-000; ER10-1951-000;
ER19-2266-000; ER16-1293-000; ER16-1277-000; ER10-1852-056; ER18-1852-
001; ER16-1354-011; ER11-4462-058; ER17-838-033; ER10-1951-036; ER19-
2266-005; ER16-1293-012; ER16-1277-012.
    Applicants: White Pine Solar, LLC, White Oak Solar, LLC, Quitman
Solar, LLC, NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, NextEra Energy
Marketing, LLC, NEPM II, LLC, Live Oak Solar, LLC, Gulf Power Company,
Florida Power & Light Company, Dougherty County Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Dougherty County Solar,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-391-005.
    Applicants: J. Aron & Company LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of J. Aron &
Company LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5194.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2380-005; ER20-2153-006; ER14-2709-022; ER15-
30-020; ER14-2708-023; ER15-1016-013; ER21-1506-003; ER18-2314-007;
ER15-2243-011; ER20-2603-005; ER21-1580-003; ER20-2597-005; ER20-780-
005; ER19-774-008; ER13-2474-021; ER19-2382-007; ER17-2270-015; ER21-
255-005; ER18-2091-009; ER12-1660-023; ER13-2458-018; ER11-4678-020;
ER21-744-003; ER20-2237-005; ER19-2495-007; ER17-582-011; ER21-2109-
002; ER20-2070-004; ER10-2078-024; ER16-1293-013; ER16-1277-013; ER17-
583-011; ER18-2032-011; ER20-2622-005; ER20-637-005; ER19-2513-007;
ER12-631-021; ER19-1076-006; ER21-1813-004; ER21-1814-004.
    Applicants: Yellow Pine Energy Center II, LLC, Yellow Pine Energy
Center I, LLC, Windstar Energy, LLC, Windpower Partners 1993, LLC,
Wilton Wind Energy II, LLC, Wilton Wind Energy I, LLC, Wilmot Energy
Center, LLC, Wildcat Ranch Wind Project, LLC, Whitney Point Solar, LLC,
White Pine Solar, LLC, White Oak Solar, LLC, White Oak Energy LLC,
Wheatridge Wind II, LLC, Wheatridge Solar Energy Center, LLC, Westside
Solar, LLC, Wessington Springs Wind, LLC, Weatherford Wind, LLC,
Wallingford Renewable Energy LLC, Vasco Winds, LLC, Tuscola Wind II,
LLC, Tuscola Bay Wind, LLC, Titan Solar, LLC, Taylor Creek Solar, LLC,
Stuttgart Solar, LLC, Story County Wind, LLC, Steele Flats Wind
Project, LLC, Stanton Clean Energy, LLC, Sooner Wind, LLC, Soldier
Creek Wind, LLC, Sky River Wind, LLC, Skeleton Creek Wind, LLC, Silver
State Solar Power South, LLC, Sholes Wind Energy, LLC, Shaw Creek
Solar, LLC, Shafter Solar, LLC, Seiling Wind, LLC, Seiling Wind
Interconnection Services, LLC, Seiling Wind II, LLC, Sanford Airport
Solar, LLC, Saint Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of NextEra Companies, et
al. (Part 4 of 4).
    Filed Date: 3/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220302-5302.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-714-003.
    Applicants: Indiana Crossroads Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Indiana
Crossroads Wind Farm LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5207.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1990-000; ER21-1990-003; ER21-2674-000; ER21-
1519-000; ER21-2118-000; ER21-1682-000; ER21-2296-000; ER21-1879-000;
ER21-2293-000; ER21-1953-000; ER21-2225-000; ER21-2117-000; ER21-2149-
000; ER21-2699-000; ER21-1880-000; ER21-2100-000; ER21-2641-000; ER21-
1532-000; ER22-96-000; ER21-2048-000; ER21-1580-000; ER21-2109-000;
ER21-1519-002; ER21-1532-001; ER21-1580-002; ER21-1682-002; ER21-1879-
003; ER21-1880-001; ER21-1953-002; ER21-2048-002; ER21-2100-002; ER21-
2109-001; ER21-2117-002; ER21-2118-003; ER21-2149-002; ER21-2225-002;
ER21-2293-003; ER21-2296-002; ER21-2641-001; ER21-2674-002; ER21-2699-
002; ER22-96-001.
    Applicants: Wheatridge Solar Energy Center, LLC, Sky River Wind,
LLC, Sac County Wind, LLC, Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC, Quitman
II Solar, LLC, Quinebaug Solar, LLC, Point Beach Solar, LLC, Niyol
Wind, LLC, Minco Wind Energy III, LLC, Minco Wind Energy II, LLC,
Little Blue Wind Project, LLC, Irish Creek Wind, LLC, Heartland Divide
Wind II, LLC, Fish Springs Ranch Solar, LLC, Farmington Solar, LLC,
Ensign Wind Energy, LLC, Elora Solar, LLC, Dodge Flat Solar, LLC, Cool
Springs Solar, LLC, Borderlands Wind, LLC, Blackwell Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Cool Springs Solar, LLC,
et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2426-001.
    Applicants: CPRE 1 Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Broad River Solar, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35: Non-Material Change in Status to be effective 5/
3/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220304-5149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2445-001.
    Applicants: Glacier Sands Wind Power, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to March 1, 2022 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Glacier Sands Wind Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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 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.
    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: March 4, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05058 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise

Chambers Works

Deepwater, NJ  08023

CERTIFIED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested

January 6, 2009

Document Control Office

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: 	EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012

	DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

	PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

	November 2008 Sample Data

Dear Document Control Office:

As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for samples taken during November 2008. We will continue to send you the reports each month.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3015.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Pinder

SET Environmental Coordinator

DuPont Chambers Works

Enclosures

Copies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only)

Principal Environmental Engineer

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Point Source Permitting – Region 2

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 18840]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08906]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3820-011]

Aclara Meters, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Existing Licensee's
Notice of Intent To File a New License Application, and Soliciting Pre-
Application Documents and Notices of Intent To File a New License
Application

    On August 31, 2016, Aclara Meters, LLC (Aclara or licensee) filed a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an application for a new license for its
Somersworth Hydroelectric Project No. 3820 (project), pursuant to
section 16.6 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ On October 6, 2016,
Commission staff issued a public notice of the NOI and approved the use
of the traditional licensing process to develop the license
application. The existing license for the project expires on August 31,
2021.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 16.6 (2018). At least five years before the
expiration of a license for a major water power project, the
licensee must file with the Commission an NOI that contains an
unequivocal statement of the licensee's intention to file or not to
file an application for a new license.
    \2\ The license for the project was issued with an effective
date of September 1, 1981, for a term of 40 years. General Electric
Company, 16 FERC 62,598 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 29, 2019, Aclara filed an application to surrender its
license for the project.\3\ In its filing, Aclara states that it will
no longer seek to relicense the Somersworth Hydroelectric Project, and
instead seeks to surrender its existing license. Accordingly, Aclara's
surrender application is also deemed to be a withdrawal of its NOI to
file an application for a new license for the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The surrender application filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the d Aclara Meters, LLC docket number field to access the
document. The Commission is not seeking public comment on the
surrender application (Docket No. P-3820-012) at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 16.25(a) of the Commission's regulations, when
an existing licensee, having previously filed an NOI to file a new
license for a project, subsequently does not file an application for a
new license, the Commission must solicit applications from potential
applicants other than the existing licensee.\4\ Any party interested in
filing a license application or exemption (i.e., a potential applicant)
for the project must file an NOI and pre-application document within 90
days from the date of this notice.\5\ While the integrated licensing
process is the default process for preparing an application for a new
license, a potential applicant may request to use alternative licensing
procedures when it files its NOI.\6\ An application for a new license
or exemption for the Somersworth Hydroelectric Project No. 3820 must be
filed within 18 months of the date of filing the NOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 16.25(a) (2018).
    \5\ Pursuant to section 16.24(a)(2) of the Commission's
regulations, the existing licensee is prohibited from filing an
application either individually or in combination with other
entities. 18 CFR 16.24(a)(2) (2018).
    \6\ 18 CFR 5.3(b) (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions concerning the process for filing an NOI should be
directed to Patrick Crile at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 26, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08906 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P