[Federal Register: August 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 165)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43654-43663]
[DOCID:fr27au09-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0467; FRL-8950-2]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
California; San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Coachella
Valley, and Sacramento Metro Ozone Nonattainment Areas;
Reclassification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing to grant requests by
the State of California to reclassify the following four areas
designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard: the San Joaquin Valley area from ``serious'' to
``extreme,'' the South Coast Air Basin area from ``severe-17'' to
``extreme,'' and the Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from
``serious'' to ``severe-15.''
    In connection with the reclassifications, EPA is proposing to
establish a deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date
of reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Coachella Valley
and Sacramento Metro area portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet certain additional requirements for
``severe-15'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. EPA has already
received SIP revision submittals addressing most of the additional SIP
requirements for these two areas and has received all of the related
SIP revision submittals for San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air
Basin. The Agency is not proposing a SIP revision schedule for any SIP
requirements for which SIP submittals have already been received.
    A number of Indian tribes have Indian country \1\ located within
the boundaries of the affected areas. The State of California is not
approved to administer any Clean Air Act programs in Indian country,
and the relevant Indian tribes have not applied for eligibility to
administer programs under the Clean Air Act for their areas. In these
circumstances, EPA implements relevant reclassification provisions of
the Clean Air Act in these Indian country areas and is proposing that
these areas be reclassified in keeping with the classifications of
nonattainment areas within which they are located. In connection with
this proposed action, EPA has notified the affected tribal leaders and
has invited consultation with interested tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to:
``(a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 28,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2008-0467, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
anonymous access system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the subject matter of this proposed rule?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
    A. What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
    B. What is the standard for 8-hour ozone?
    C. What is a SIP and how does it relate to the NAAQS for 8-hour
ozone?
    D. What are the affected California 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas, what are their current classifications, and what is the
status of their SIP submittals?
    1. Affected Areas and Their Current Classifications
    2. Status of SIP Submittals
    E. What are the consequences of reclassifications?
III. What action is EPA proposing?
    A. Granting the State's Requests for Reclassification
    B. Reclassification of Indian Country
    1. Affected Tribes
    2. Evaluation
    3. Effects of Reclassifications on Indian Tribes
    C. Setting Deadlines for Submitting SIP Revisions
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the subject matter of this proposed rule?

    Today's proposed rule provides EPA's response to requests by a
state for voluntary reclassifications, under section 181(b)(3) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), for certain areas designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard. Specifically, the State of California has requested
reclassification to higher classifications for four 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. These areas include San Joaquin Valley, South
Coast Air Basin, Coachella Valley, and Sacramento Metro. We are
reviewing these requests under section 181(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act,
which provides for ``voluntary reclassification'' and states: ``The
Administrator shall grant the request of any State to reclassify a
nonattainment area in that State in accordance with Table 1 of
subsection (a) of this section to a higher classification. The
Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of any
such request and of action by the Administrator granting the request.''
See 40 CFR 51.903(b) (``A State may request a higher classification for
any reason in accordance with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA'') and 40
CFR 51.903(a) Table 1.

II. What is the background for this proposed action?

A. What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

    The CAA requires EPA to establish a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for certain pervasive pollutants that ``may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare'' and to develop a
primary and secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary standard is
designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety and
the secondary standard is designed to protect public welfare and the
environment. EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants, referred
to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present
state and local governments with the air quality levels an area must
meet to comply with the CAA.

B. What is the standard for 8-hour ozone?

    Ozone is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. It is not usually
emitted directly into the air, but at ground level is created by a
chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight. On July 18,
1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per
million (ppm) to replace the less-protective 0.12 ppm 1-hour ozone
standard that was established by EPA in 1979. We revoked the 1-hour
ozone standard effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b) and 69 FR
23858 (April 30, 2004). Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-
hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is
less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is
considered). (See 69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004, for further
information).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Today's proposed rule deals with the classifications and SIP
obligations associated with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated in
1997. On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone
standard to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 for further information.
Designations, classifications, and SIP obligations under the 2008
revised ozone standard will be addressed separately in future EPA
rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is a SIP and how does it relate to the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone?

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution
regulations and control strategies to ensure that air quality meets the
NAAQS established by EPA. Each state must submit these regulations and
control strategies to EPA for approval and incorporation into the
Federally-enforceable State Implementation Plan, or SIP. Each SIP
protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point
of origin. These SIPs can be extensive. They may contain state
regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information
such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations.
    We promulgated final rules to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in two phases. The Phase 1 rule, which was issued on April 30, 2004 (69
FR 23951), establishes, among other things, the classification
structure and corresponding attainment deadlines, as well as the anti-
backsliding principles for the transition from the 1-hour ozone
standard to the 8-hour ozone standard.
    However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 rule. See South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing,
the D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 rule was vacated only with
regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully
challenged. See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 489
F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The provisions of the Phase 1 rule that are
directly relevant for the purposes of this proposed rule were not among
the provisions that were successfully challenged, and they remain
effective. Such provisions include the classifications for areas under
Title I, Part D, subpart 2 of the CAA and the related 8-hour ozone
standard attainment dates.
    The Phase 2 rule, which was issued on November 29, 2005 (70 FR
71612), addresses the remaining SIP obligations for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, including the SIP elements associated with reasonably
available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), modeling and
attainment demonstrations, new source review (NSR), vehicle inspection
and maintenance programs (I/M), and contingency measures (for failure
to meet RFP and the attainment date).
    In March 2008, EPA found that some ozone nonattainment areas in the
nation had failed to submit attainment demonstrations, Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) plans, and Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) SIPs. See 73 FR 15416 (March 24, 2008). For three
California 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas (Sacramento Metro, Ventura
County and Western Mojave Desert), we found that the areas had not
submitted, either in part or in full, the RFP plans that applied by
virtue of their current ozone classification (i.e., prior to
reclassification). See letter dated March 17, 2008 from Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, EPA-Region IX, to Mary D. Nichols, Chairman,
California Air Resources Board.
    Since our March 17, 2008 findings (published in the Federal
Register on March 24, 2008), the State of California has submitted the
necessary RFP plans for all three areas (i.e., Sacramento Metro,
Ventura County and Western Mojave Desert). By letters dated September
19, 2008, October 2, 2008, and October 2, 2008, respectively, we
notified California that we had found the Sacramento Metro, Ventura
County and Western Mojave Desert plans that were submitted on the dates
listed above to be complete and that the related sanctions clocks begun
on March 24, 2008 had been permanently stopped. See letters from
Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA-Region IX to James
Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated
September 19, 2008, October 2, 2008, and October 2, 2008, respectively.

D. What are the affected California 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas,
what are their current classifications, and what is the status of their
SIP submittals?

1. Affected Areas and Their Current Classifications
    Effective June 15, 2004, we designated nonattainment areas for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. At the same time, we assigned classifications
to many of these areas based upon their ozone ``design value,'' in
accordance with the structure of Part D, subpart 2 of Title I of the
Clean Air Act.\3\ See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR
51.903(a). The 8-hour ozone designations and classifications for
California areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.305. Classifications for
four of those 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are affected by this
proposal. As noted previously, these four areas (and their current
classifications) are as follows: San Joaquin Valley (serious), South
Coast Air Basin (severe-17), Coachella Valley (serious), and Sacramento
Metro (serious).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The design value for 8-hour ozone is defined at 40 CFR
51.900(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Status of SIP Submittals
    Table 1 presents the 1-hour ozone classification (i.e., at the time
of

designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS) for each of the four areas
along with each area's corresponding current and requested 8-hour ozone
classification. A comparison of each area's classification under the 1-
hour ozone standard with the area's classification under the 8-hour
ozone standard (i.e., when reclassified) shows that the affected areas
would, upon reclassification, essentially be returning to their
respective classifications under the 1-hour standard.\4\ As a result,
many SIP submittal requirements for these areas have already been met.
Most ozone requirements for these areas were addressed in the 1990s in
response to the CAA Amendments of 1990, as well as in response to
previous ozone reclassifications under the 1-hour standard. In the
paragraphs that follow Table 1, we discuss the status of relevant SIP
submittals for each of the four areas. In this instance, the term,
``relevant SIP submittals,'' refers to those submittals made to satisfy
the specific additional requirements triggered by reclassification, not
those that already apply by virtue of an area's current classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ From the standpoint of SIP submittal requirements, there is
no distinction between the ``severe-15'' classification and the
``severe-17'' classification.

                               Table 1--Existing and Future Ozone Classifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             1-Hour ozone        Existing 8-hour ozone    Requested 8-hour ozone
   8-Hour ozone nonattainment area          classification           classification           classification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Joaquin Valley...................  Extreme................  Serious................  Extreme.
South Coast Air Basin................  Extreme................  Severe-17..............  Extreme.
Coachella Valley.....................  Severe-17..............  Serious................  Severe-15.
Sacramento Metro.....................  Severe-15..............  Serious................  Severe-15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    San Joaquin Valley. On November 16, 2007, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) requested that EPA reclassify the San Joaquin
Valley 8-hour ozone nonattainment area from ``serious'' to ``extreme''.
This request was accompanied by a submittal of a SIP revision
addressing certain additional SIP requirements that would apply to San
Joaquin Valley by virtue of reclassification from ``serious'' to
``extreme,'' including RFP, attainment demonstration, contingency
measures, and transportation control measures to offset emissions from
growth in vehicle miles traveled (CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)). On June
18, 2009, CARB submitted a RACT SIP for San Joaquin Valley addressing
stationary sources with potentials to emit 10 tons per year of VOC or
NOX or more (i.e., the threshold for ``major sources'' in
``extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas). On March 17, 2009, CARB
submitted NSR rules consistent with the proposed reclassification of
this area to ``extreme.'' CARB has previously submitted SIP revisions
for San Joaquin Valley addressing the clean fuels for boilers
requirement under CAA section 182(e)(3) and the major stationary source
fees requirement under CAA section 185. See 74 FR 33933, at 33945 (July
14, 2009) and 74 FR 33950 (July 14, 2009; reproposed August 19, 2009),
respectively, for EPA proposed actions on those submittals.
    South Coast Air Basin. On November 28, 2007, CARB requested that
EPA reclassify the South Coast Air Basin 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area from ``severe-17'' to ``extreme.'' This request was accompanied by
a submittal of a SIP revision addressing certain additional SIP
requirements that would apply to the South Coast Air Basin by virtue of
reclassification from ``severe-17'' to ``extreme,'' including RFP,
attainment demonstration, and contingency measures. CARB submitted an
``extreme'' RACT SIP for the area on January 31, 2007. CARB has
submitted NSR rules consistent with the proposed reclassification of
this area to ``extreme.'' See 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996) for
information regarding South Coast NSR rules. CARB has previously
submitted SIP revisions for South Coast Air Basin addressing the clean
fuels for boilers requirement under CAA section 182(e)(3). See 61 FR
57775 (November 8, 1996) for EPA's approval of the rule submitted to
satisfy the CAA section 182(e)(3) requirement in the South Coast.
    Coachella Valley. In that same November 28, 2007 reclassification
request and submittal, CARB requested that EPA reclassify the Coachella
Valley 8-hour ozone nonattainment area from ``serious'' to ``severe-
15.'' The state has made a submittal addressing certain additional SIP
requirements that would apply to Coachella Valley by virtue of
reclassification from ``serious'' to ``severe-15,'' including RFP,
attainment demonstration, contingency measures, and transportation
control measures to offset emissions from growth in vehicle miles
traveled (CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)).\5\ CARB submitted a ``severe-15''
RACT SIP for the area on January 31, 2007. CARB has submitted NSR rules
consistent with the proposed reclassification of this area to ``severe-
15.'' See 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996) for information regarding NSR
rules that apply within Coachella Valley. CARB has not yet submitted a
SIP revision addressing the CAA section 185 fees requirement for
Coachella Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CARB's November 28, 2007 submittal included an attainment
demonstration plan as a ``severe-15'' area for Coachella Valley, but
included the RFP plan for informational purposes only, effectively
withholding the ``severe-15'' RFP plan from submittal to EPA, due to
concerns about litigation and EPA policy on use of out-of-area
reductions in RFP plans. CARB subsequently withdrew this withholding
request in a letter to EPA dated February 19, 2008. For
administrative SIP completeness and final Agency action purposes,
EPA intends to treat the RFP plan for Coachella Valley as having
been submitted on February 19, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sacramento Metro. By letter dated February 14, 2008, CARB requested
that EPA reclassify three California areas designated nonattainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard: Ventura County,\6\

Sacramento Metro,\7\ and Western Mojave Desert.\8\ With respect to
Sacramento Metro, CARB requested reclassification from ``serious'' to
``severe-15.'' On April 17, 2009, CARB submitted a SIP revision for the
Sacramento Metro nonattainment area addressing certain additional SIP
requirements that would apply to the Sacramento Metro area by virtue of
reclassification from ``serious'' to ``severe-15,'' including RFP,
attainment demonstration, contingency measures, and transportation
control measures to offset emissions from growth in vehicle miles
traveled (CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)). CARB has also submitted ``severe-
15'' area RACT SIPs (i.e., implementing RACT for sources with potential
to emit 25 tons per year of VOC or NOX or more) for all air
districts within the Sacramento Metro area. For New Source Review, CARB
has submitted a ``severe-15'' area SIP only for the Yolo-Solano and El
Dorado portions of the Sacramento Metro area, and CARB has submitted a
SIP revision addressing the CAA section 185 fees requirement only for
the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD portion of the Sacramento Metro area.
See 68 FR 51184 (August 26, 2003) for EPA's approval of Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD's fees rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29073), EPA took final action to
grant the State's request to reclassify Ventura County from
``moderate'' to ``serious,'' effective June 19, 2008. See 73 FR
29073 (May 20, 2008). In our May 20, 2008 final rule, we stated that
we will propose in a separate document a schedule for required plan
submittals for Ventura County under the new classification. However,
on June 27, 2008, CARB submitted a SIP revision for Ventura County
addressing certain additional SIP requirements that apply to Ventura
County by virtue of reclassification from ``moderate'' to
``serious,'' including RACT, RFP, attainment demonstration, and
contingency measures. CARB has previously submitted SIP revisions
for Ventura County addressing the enhanced monitoring requirement
under CAA section 182(c)(1), the enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) requirement under CAA section 182(c)(3), and the
clean-fuel vehicles requirement under CAA section 182(c)(4). See 62
FR 1150 (January 8, 1997) and 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999) for
EPA's approvals related to the I/M program and the clean-fuel
vehicles requirement, respectively. In addition, CARB has submitted
NSR rules consistent with the reclassification of this area. See 66
FR 76567 (December 7, 2000) for EPA's approval of Ventura County's
NSR rules. Since CARB has submitted SIP revisions addressing all of
the additional requirements for Ventura County that apply by virtue
of reclassification from ``moderate'' to ``serious,'' we will not be
proposing a schedule for any additional SIP revisions for Ventura
County as a ``serious'' area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    \7\ The Sacramento Metro 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
includes all of Sacramento County and Yolo County, and portions of
El Dorado, Placer, Solano, and Sutter Counties. The applicable air
districts include Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District (AQMD), Yolo-Solano AQMD, El Dorado County AQMD, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and Feather River
AQMD.
    \8\ CARB has requested that the Western Mojave Desert 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area be reclassified from ``moderate'' to
``severe-17.'' EPA will take action on CARB's reclassification
request for Western Mojave Desert in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What are the consequences of reclassifications?

    By granting a state's request to reclassify an ozone nonattainment
area to a higher classification, EPA must address submittal deadlines
for SIP requirements that have become applicable to an area as a result
of its higher classification. Such SIP requirements include submittals
that demonstrate RACT level of control for all stationary sources with
potentials to emit at lower ``major source'' emissions thresholds, RFP,
and attainment. We note, however, that while the state is generally
provided time to submit SIP revisions, there are certain requirements
that would be triggered upon the effective date of the
reclassification, such as lower applicability (or ``de minimis'')
thresholds under our General Conformity rule (see 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1)).
For Federal actions proposed in San Joaquin Valley, the de minimis
threshold under EPA's General Conformity rule would drop from 50 tons
per year to 10 tons per year for VOC or NOX. In the South
Coast, the de minimis threshold would drop from 25 to 10 tons per year.
In Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro, the de minimis threshold
would drop from 50 to 25 tons per year. See 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1). Under
EPA's General Conformity rule, Federal agencies bear the responsibility
of determining conformity of actions in nonattainment and maintenance
areas that require Federal permits, approvals, or funding.
    In regards to Title V operating permit programs and the
requirements for SIPs regarding review of new or modified major
stationary sources (``new source review''), the reclassifications
proposed herein would not lower the ``major source'' applicability
thresholds required in a revised SIP because the statutory thresholds
that applied by virtue of the areas' classifications under the 1-hour
ozone standard continue to apply as anti-backsliding measures for the
8-hour ozone standard (see South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245
(clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the
court granted the petitions for review)), and the new 8-hour ozone
classification for each of the four subject areas, as reclassified,
would be the same as the area's corresponding 1-hour ozone
classification (see Table 1 above).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In EPA's phase 1 ozone implementation rule, EPA made NSR
applicability thresholds dependent upon the status and
classification of an area under the 8-hour ozone standard. The
effect of the ruling in the South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA case is to restore NSR applicability thresholds pursuant to
the classifications previously in effect for areas designated
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. See EPA memorandum from
Robert J. Meyers, ``New Source Review (NSR) Aspects of the Decision
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on
the Phase 1 Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' dated October 3, 2007. As provided in
CAA sections 501 and 502(a) and 40 CFR 70.2, 70.3(a), 71.2 and
71.3(a), the thresholds at which a source is required to apply for
and operate a Title V operating permit are linked to the NSR ``major
source'' applicability threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What action is EPA proposing?

A. Granting the State's Requests for Reclassification

    We find that the plain language of section 181(b)(3) mandates that
we approve voluntary reclassification requests,\10\ and thus, EPA
intends to take final action granting the State's request for the
following voluntary reclassifications: the San Joaquin Valley area from
``serious'' to ``extreme''; the South Coast Air Basin area from
``severe-17'' to ``extreme''; and the Coachella Valley and Sacramento
Metro areas from ``serious'' to ``severe-15.'' Upon the effective date
of a final action granting the reclassifications, these four areas will
be required to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than the applicable maximum attainment
period set forth in 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1: June 15, 2024 for San
Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin; and June 15, 2019 for
Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The reclassification requests submitted by CARB do not
explicitly address Indian country located within the various ozone
nonattainment areas. We assume that CARB's request relates only to
the portions of the nonattainment areas that lie outside of Indian
country.
    \11\ If today's action is finalized as proposed, the new
attainment dates would apply area-wide to both State lands and
Indian country located therein, but unlike the State of California,
the Indian tribes located within the four subject areas would not be
subject to specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines
under the new ozone classifications, such as plan submittals
discussed in subsection III.C of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reclassification of Indian Country

1. Affected Tribes
    Table 2 lists the tribes that have Indian country geographically
located in the nonattainment areas at issue in this proposal. As shown
in Table 2, 21 tribes are located within the four areas: seven in San
Joaquin Valley, seven in South Coast, four in Coachella Valley, and
three in Sacramento Metro.

                      Table 2--Indian Tribes Located in Areas Subject to Reclassifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        San Joaquin Valley                South Coast             Coachella Valley          Sacramento Metro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono        Cahuilla Band of Indians   Agua Caliente Band of     United Auburn Indian
 Indians (including the Big Sandy   (including the Cahuilla    Cahuilla Indians          Community (including
 Rancheria).                        Reservation).              (including the Agua       the Auburn Rancheria).
                                                               Caliente Indian
                                                               Reservation).
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono     Morongo Band of Mission    Augustine Band of         Rumsey Indian Rancheria
 Indians (including the Cold        Indians (including the     Cahuilla Mission          of Wintun Indians
 Springs Rancheria).                Morongo Reservation).      Indians (including the    (including the Rumsey
                                                               Augustine Reservation).   Indian Rancheria).
North Fork Rancheria of Mono       Pechanga Band of           Cabazon Band of Mission   Shingle Springs Band of
 Indians (including the North       Luise[ntilde]o Mission     Indians (including the    Miwok Indians
 Fork Rancheria).                   Indians (including the     Cabazon Reservation).     [including the Shingle
                                    Pechanga Reservation).                               Springs Rancheria
                                                                                (Verona Tract)].
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi   Ramona Band of Cahuilla    Torres Martinez Desert
 Indians (including the Picayune    (including the Ramona      Cahuilla Indians
 Rancheria).                        Band).                     (including the Torres-
                                                               Martinez Reservation).
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut   San Manuel Band of
 Tribe (including the Santa Rosa    Serrano Mission Indians
 Rancheria).                        (including the San
                                    Manuel Reservation).
Table Mountain Rancheria           Santa Rosa Band of
 (including the Table Mountain      Cahuilla Mission Indians
 Rancheria).                        (including the Santa
                                    Rosa Reservation).
Tule River Indian Tribe            Soboba Band of
 (including the Tule River          Luise[ntilde]o Mission
 Reservation).                      Indians (including the
                                    Soboba Reservation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Evaluation
    We have considered the relevance of the State's reclassification
requests to reclassification of these tribes' Indian country located
within the various nonattainment areas. Typically, states are not
approved to administer programs under the CAA in Indian country, and
California has not been approved by EPA to administer any CAA programs
in Indian country. CAA actions in Indian country would thus generally
be taken either by EPA, or by an eligible Indian tribe itself under an
EPA-approved program. In this instance, none of the affected tribes has
applied under CAA section 301(d) for treatment-in-a-similar-manner-as-
a-state for purposes of reclassification requests under section
181(b)(3), and none operates any relevant EPA-approved CAA regulatory
program (e.g., a tribal implementation plan). In addition, the CAA does
not require Indian tribes to develop and seek approval of air programs,
and--pursuant to our authority in CAA section 301(d)--EPA has
interpreted relevant CAA requirements for submission of air programs as
not applying to tribes. See 40 CFR section 49.4. In these
circumstances, EPA is the appropriate entity to administer relevant CAA
programs in Indian country. EPA is proposing to directly administer CAA
section 181(b)(3) and reclassify Indian country geographically located
in the nonattainment areas that are the subject of the State's
reclassification request, consistent with EPA's discretionary authority
in CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to directly administer CAA
programs and protect air quality in Indian country through federal
implementation. Section 301(a) authorizes the Administrator ``to
prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions
under the [the Act.]'' Further, section 301(d) provides:

    In any case in which the Administrator determines that the
treatment of Indian tribes as identical to States is inappropriate
or administratively infeasible, the Administrator may provide, by
regulation, other means by which the Administrator will directly
administer such provision so as to achieve the appropriate purpose.

    While tribes may choose to apply for eligibility to adopt
implementation plans and seek reclassification of their areas in a
manner similar to states, tribes need not do so. For the following
reasons, EPA is proposing to directly administer section 181(b)(3) and
reclassify these Indian country areas in order to avoid inappropriate
and administratively infeasible results.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Consistent with this discretionary authority, EPA is also
authorized to promulgate such federal implementation plan provisions
as are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality in the
absence of an approved tribal implementation plan. See 40 CFR
section 49.11. EPA is continuing to evaluate air quality issues
throughout Indian country located in these nonattainment areas. At
this point, we do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to
promulgate an RFP, attainment, or RACT FIP for any of the Indian
country areas located within the four nonattainment areas. EPA
intends to consult with the relevant Indian tribes regarding this
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ground-level ozone continues to be a pervasive pollution problem in
areas throughout the United States. Ozone and precursor pollutants that
cause ozone can be transported throughout a nonattainment area.
Therefore, boundaries for nonattainment areas are drawn to encompass
both areas with direct sources of the pollution problem as well as
nearby areas in the same airshed. Initial classifications of
nonattainment areas are coterminous with, that is, they match exactly,
their boundaries. EPA believes this approach best ensures public health
protection from the adverse effects of ozone pollution. Therefore, it
is generally counterproductive from an air quality and planning
perspective to have a disparate classification for a land area located
within the boundaries of a nonattainment area, such as the Indian
country contained in the ozone nonattainment areas at issue here.
Moreover, violations of the eight-hour ozone standard, which are
measured and modeled throughout the nonattainment areas, as well as
shared meteorological conditions, would dictate the same result.
Furthermore, emissions changes in lower-classified ozone areas could
hinder planning efforts to attain the NAAQS within the overall area
through the application of less stringent requirements relative to
those that apply in the areas with higher ozone classifications.
    Uniformity of classification throughout a nonattainment area is
thus a guiding principle and premise when an area is being
reclassified. With regard to the Indian country at issue in this
proposal, EPA has also taken into account other factors. For example,
the likelihood of attainment by the applicable deadline under the
current classification is an appropriate

consideration for reclassifying Indian country within the larger
nonattainment areas.\13\ If EPA believes it is likely that a given
ozone nonattainment area will not attain the ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, then it may be an additional reason why it
is appropriate to maintain a uniform classification within the area and
thus to reclassify the Indian country consistent with the State's
request for the portion of the area within State jurisdiction. On the
other hand, if meeting the attainment date were still a reasonable
possibility, then it conceivably may be appropriate for EPA to decide
to defer reclassification of Indian country notwithstanding the State's
request for reclassification of the portion of the nonattainment area
subject to State Clean Air Act programs and notwithstanding the
generally weighty considerations discussed above that support the
retention of a single uniformly-classified nonattainment area as
opposed to the creation of islands of differently-classified
nonattainment areas within the larger nonattainment area. Depending on
the circumstances, other factors may also provide justifications for
refraining from reclassifying Indian country in conjunction with
granting a State's request for voluntary reclassification of State
lands in the same nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In this action, we are not reconsidering the boundaries of
the nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, but we expect to continue to discuss boundary
issues with Tribes that have expressed concerns about their
inclusion within large nonattainment areas. To date, such Tribes
include the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Pechanga Band of
Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians whose concerns relate to their
inclusion within the South Coast Air Basin. These two tribes have
recently submitted boundary redesignation requests to EPA for which
EPA is considering appropriate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the areas that are the subject of this proposed
action, we have evaluated the likelihood of attainment by the area's
existing attainment deadline, based on information that is currently
available. This evaluation was aided by the fact that CARB has already
submitted attainment demonstrations for these four areas that are
intended to support later attainment dates under a new, higher
classification. In the discussion that follows, EPA is not determining
which new attainment date is as expeditious as practicable nor whether
these demonstrations are approvable.
    San Joaquin Valley. For San Joaquin Valley under the current
classification (``serious''), the 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date is
as expeditious as practicable but not later than June 15, 2013 (i.e.,
nine years from the effective date of designation). The San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's San Joaquin Valley 2007
Ozone Plan (April 30, 2007) (``2007 Ozone Plan'') contains information
on current ozone levels, emissions trends, and the attainment strategy,
and provides a basis for assessing the likelihood of attainment prior
to June 15, 2013.
    The 2007 Ozone Plan describes the meteorological and topographic
factors that exacerbate ozone conditions within San Joaquin Valley and
that make efforts to improve air quality particularly challenging. It
shows that current ozone levels are well above the NAAQS at many
locations within the Valley. It projects, based on the results of
photochemical modeling, that attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
throughout the Valley will require an additional decrease from existing
levels of 75% in NOX emissions. Most of these reductions are
expected to occur from regulatory measures already adopted or expected
to be adopted in the relatively near future, but the emissions
reductions benefits from many of the measures, particularly those
related to mobile sources, rely on vehicle turnover and thus take years
to reach their full potential. Thus, based on the information currently
available, it appears likely that the area will not attain by June 15,
2013.
    The State has requested reclassification of San Joaquin Valley to
``extreme,'' which would extend the 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date
by 11 years to no later than June 15, 2024. The plan indicates that
attainment by June 15, 2019, the attainment date for the next higher
classification (i.e., ``severe-15''), is also unlikely given the
magnitude of emissions reductions needed for attainment and the
reliance on vehicle turnover.\14\ In addition, it highlights the need
for the highest level of air pollution control to attain the ozone
NAAQS within the Valley, and for ozone, the highest level of control is
triggered by a classification of ``extreme.'' Therefore, in light of
the considerations outlined above that support retention of a
uniformly-classified ozone nonattainment area, and additional
circumstances arguing for an attainment date well beyond the date
applicable under the current classification, we propose to reclassify
the Indian country areas within the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area to ``extreme.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA has not yet taken action on the 2007 Ozone Plan, which
was submitted to EPA on November 17, 2007 by the State of California
as a revision to the California SIP. We will take action on the 2007
Ozone plan in a separate rulemaking. When we do take action on the
plan, EPA will make a determination as to whether the plan provides
for expeditious attainment and meets the other requirements for RFP,
attainment, and contingency measures (and other measures required
under the extreme classification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    South Coast. For South Coast under the current classification
(``severe-17''), the 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date is as
expeditious as practicable but not later than June 15, 2021 (i.e., 17
years from the effective date of designation). We have reviewed the
South Coast Air Quality Management District's Final 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan (June 2007) (``2007 AQMP'') for information on current
ozone levels, emissions trends, and the attainment strategy to assess
the likelihood of attainment prior to June 15, 2021.
    The 2007 AQMP describes current ozone conditions and the magnitude
of the emissions reductions that would be needed to attain the ozone
NAAQS. Despite an extensive array of measures already adopted and
implemented to reduce stationary, area and mobile emissions sources,
the plan's modeling analysis projects that the South Coast would still
need to reduce emissions by approximately 120 tons per year of VOC and
400 tons per year of NOX from new measures to attain the
standard. Given the extent to which sources have already been regulated
in the South Coast, the 2007 AQMP relies on new and advanced control
technologies, referred to as ``black box'' measures, to reach the lower
level of emissions needed for attainment, and such measures necessarily
require more lead time than control technologies already in use. Thus,
based on the information currently available, it appears likely that
additional time beyond 2021 will be necessary to attain the
standard.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The 2007 AQMP was submitted to EPA on November 28, 2007 as
a revision to the California SIP. EPA is not making a determination
in this document as to whether the plan provides for expeditious
attainment and meets the other requirements for RFP, attainment, and
contingency measures (and other measures required under the extreme
classification) but will do so in a separate rulemaking when we take
action on the 2007 AQMP as required under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has requested reclassification of South Coast to the next
higher level, i.e., to ``extreme,'' which would extend the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS attainment date by 3 years to no later than June 15, 2024. In
light of the considerations outlined above that support retention of a
uniformly-classified ozone nonattainment area, and the information
supporting an attainment date beyond the date applicable under the
current classification, we propose to reclassify

the Indian country areas within the South Coast to ``extreme.''
    Coachella Valley. For Coachella Valley under the current
classification (``serious''), the 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date is
as expeditious as practicable but not later than June 15, 2013 (i.e.,
nine years from the effective date of designation). We have reviewed
chapter 8 (``Future Air Quality--Desert Nonattainment Areas'') of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District's Final 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan (June 2007) (``2007 AQMP'') for information on current
ozone levels, emissions trends, and the likelihood of attainment prior
to June 15, 2013.
    The 2007 AQMP describes the nature of the ozone problem in
Coachella Valley as primarily a function of transport of ozone and
ozone precursors in the Valley from the upwind South Coast. The
modeling analysis conducted for the 2007 AQMP shows a gradual decline
in ozone concentrations in the wake of declining emissions in the South
Coast, but indicates that the pace of the reductions would not result
in ozone concentrations that meet the NAAQS until after 2013.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Coachella Valley 8-hour ozone plan is included within
the 2007 AQMP, which was submitted to EPA on November 28, 2007 as a
revision to the California SIP. EPA is not making a determination in
this document as to whether the plan provides for expeditious
attainment and meets the other requirements for RFP, attainment, and
contingency measures (and other measures required under the severe-
15 classification) but will do so in a separate rulemaking when we
take action on the 2007 AQMP as required under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has requested reclassification of Coachella Valley to the
next higher level, i.e., to ``severe-15,'' which would extend the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS attainment date by 6 years to no later than June 15,
2019. In light of the considerations outlined above that support
retention of a uniformly-classified ozone nonattainment area and the
information supporting an attainment date beyond the date applicable
under the current classification, we propose to reclassify the Indian
country areas within Coachella Valley to ``severe-15.''
    Sacramento Metro. For Sacramento Metro under the current
classification (``serious''), the 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date is
as expeditious as practicable but not later than June 15, 2013 (i.e.,
nine years from the effective date of designation). We have reviewed
the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further
Progress Plan (December 19, 2008) (``2008 Sacramento Ozone Plan'') for
information on current ozone levels, emissions trends, and the
likelihood of attainment prior to June 15, 2013.
    The 2008 Sacramento Ozone Plan presents emissions inventories for
existing conditions and projects baseline emissions for various future
years. These inventories show that mobile sources (on-road and non-
road) contribute approximately 60% of the total VOC and 90% of the
total NOX in this nonattainment area. Given the predominance
of mobile source emissions in the overall inventory, the plan concludes
that the region needs to rely on the longer term emission reductions
strategies from state and federal mobile source control programs and
that, as a result, the 2013 attainment date cannot be met.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 2008 Sacramento Ozone Plan was submitted to EPA on
April 17, 2009 as a revision to the California SIP. EPA is not
making a determination in this document as to whether the plan
provides for expeditious attainment and meets the other requirements
for RFP, attainment, and contingency measures (and other measures
required under the severe-15 classification) but will do so in a
separate rulemaking when we take action on the 2008 Sacramento Ozone
Plan as required under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has requested reclassification of Sacramento Metro to the
next higher level, i.e., to ``severe-15,'' which would extend the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS attainment date by 6 years to no later than June 15,
2019. In light of the considerations outlined above that support
retention of a uniformly-classified ozone nonattainment area and the
information supporting an attainment date beyond the date applicable
under the current classification, we propose to reclassify the Indian
country areas within Sacramento Metro to ``severe-15.''
3. Effects of Reclassifications on Indian Tribes
    For the Tribes whose Indian country lies within the four subject
nonattainment areas, the effect of reclassification would be to lower
the de minimis threshold under EPA's General Conformity rule (40 CFR
part 53, subpart B) as described above in section II.E of this
document. As also noted in section II.E of this document, under EPA's
General Conformity rule, Federal agencies bear the responsibility of
determining conformity of actions in nonattainment and maintenance
areas that require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. Such
permits, approvals or funding by Federal agencies for projects in these
areas of Indian country may be more difficult to attain because of the
lower de minimis thresholds.
    With respect to review of new or modified major stationary sources
(``new source review'') and Title V operating permits, the proposed
reclassifications would not lower the applicable ``major source''
thresholds because the thresholds for the purposes of NSR and Title V
that had applied by virtue of the areas' classifications under the 1-
hour ozone standard continue to apply as anti-backsliding measures
under the 8-hour standard (see South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245
(clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the
court granted the petitions for review)), and the new 8-hour ozone
classification for each of the four subject areas, as reclassified,
would be the same as the area's corresponding 1-hour ozone
classification (see Table 1 of this document).
    EPA implements NSR in Indian country areas located within
designated nonattainment areas unless EPA has approved an NSR program
for such areas. Where EPA is the implementing agency, EPA implements
NSR through promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
establishing an NSR program in a given Indian country area. EPA has not
promulgated an NSR FIP for any of the areas of Indian country in the
four subject nonattainment areas. EPA could promulgate an NSR FIP for
any given Indian country area within the four subject nonattainment
areas if a new or modified major stationary source were to locate
within these areas, but such a FIP would be based on the same major
source applicability thresholds regardless of whether the Indian
country areas are reclassified, as explained above.
    On August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48696), EPA proposed a FIP that would
extend Appendix S (``Emission Offset Interpretive Ruling'') in 40 CFR
part 51 to Indian country within nonattainment areas until replaced by
an EPA-approved NSR implementation plan for a given area of Indian
country. Extension of Appendix S to Indian country would alleviate the
potential necessity for EPA to promulgate area-specific NSR FIPs for
Indian country located within the four subject nonattainment areas.
Please refer to our August 21, 2006 proposed rule for a detailed
explanation of NSR in nonattainment areas of Indian country (71 FR
48696, at 48718-48719). Until EPA finalizes action to extend Appendix S
to Indian country, EPA may find it necessary or appropriate to
promulgate area-specific NSR FIPs for Indian country within the four
subject nonattainment areas, depending upon the emissions potential of
any proposed new or modified stationary sources in these Indian country
areas.

C. Setting Deadlines for Submitting SIP Revisions

    For the reasons discussed below for each area, we are proposing SIP
submission deadlines for the areas and SIP revisions shown in Table
3.\18\

                              Table 3--Summary of Sip Revision Submittal Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Proposed
  8-Hour ozone nonattainment area       classification      8-Hour ozone SIP element       Submittal due date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coachella Valley..................  Severe-15............  CAA Section 185 fees......  No later than 12 months
                                                                                from the effective date
                                                                                of reclassification.
Sacramento Metro..................  Severe-15............  NSR (Sacramento             No later than 12 months
                                                            Metropolitan AQMD, Placer   from the effective date
                                                            County APCD, Feather        of reclassification.
                                                            River AQMD only).
                                                           CAA Section 185 fees (El    No later than 12 months
                                                            Dorado County AQMD,         from the effective date
                                                            Placer County APCD,         of reclassification.
                                                            Feather River AQMD, and
                                                            Yolo-Solano AQMD only).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    San Joaquin Valley. As noted above in section II.D.2 of this
document, CARB has submitted SIP revisions addressing all of the
additional SIP requirements for San Joaquin Valley consistent with
reclassification from ``serious'' to ``extreme.'' EPA therefore is not
proposing a schedule for additional SIP revisions in response to the
reclassification of this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The deadlines proposed herein relate solely to specific
additional requirements triggered by the reclassification for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and should not be interpreted as relieving an area
of any existing obligation that the area has based on its 1-hour
ozone classification, or of existing obligations unrelated to
attainment that are based on its current 8-hour ozone
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    South Coast Air Basin. As noted above in section II.D.2 of this
document, CARB has submitted SIP revisions addressing all of the
additional SIP requirements for the South Coast Air Basin consistent
with reclassification from ``severe-17'' to ``extreme.'' EPA therefore
is not proposing a schedule for additional SIP revisions in response to
the reclassification of this area.
    Coachella Valley. As noted above in section II.D.2 of this
document, CARB has submitted SIP revisions addressing all of the
additional SIP requirements for Coachella Valley consistent with
reclassification from ``serious'' to ``severe-15,'' except for the
major stationary source fees requirement under CAA section 185. EPA is
proposing to establish a deadline of no later than 12 months from the
effective date of reclassification for submittal of a revision to the
Coachella Valley portion of the SIP that meets the major stationary
source fees requirement under CAA section 185.
    Sacramento Metro. As noted above in section II.D.2 of this
document, CARB has submitted SIP revisions addressing all but two of
the additional SIP requirements for the Sacramento Metro area
consistent with reclassification from ``serious'' to ``severe-15.''
CARB has not submitted new source review rules for certain air
districts within the Sacramento Metro area consistent with the
``severe-15'' ozone classification. EPA is proposing to establish a
deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date of
reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Sacramento Metro
portion of the SIP that meet the additional new source review
requirements for a ``severe-15'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Placer County APCD, and Feather River
AQMD. CARB has also not submitted SIP revisions addressing the CAA
section 185 fees requirement for four of the five districts within the
Sacramento Metro area, including El Dorado County AQMD, Placer County
APCD, Feather River AQMD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. EPA is proposing the
same deadline for the CAA section 185 fees requirement as for the
``severe-15'' NSR requirement discussed above.

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3) and 40 CFR 51.903(b), EPA
proposes to grant the following reclassification requests by the State
of California: the San Joaquin Valley area from ``serious'' to
``extreme''; the South Coast Air Basin area from ``severe-17'' to
``extreme''; and the Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from
``serious'' to ``severe-15,'' and to change the table for 8-hour ozone
in 40 CFR 81.305 accordingly.
    In connection with the reclassifications, EPA is proposing to
establish a deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date
of reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Coachella Valley
portion of the SIP to meet the CAA section 185 fees requirement. EPA is
also proposing the same deadline for submittal of revisions to the
Sacramento Metro area portion of the SIP to meet the following
additional SIP requirements for ``severe-15'' areas: new source review
rules consistent with this classification (Sacramento Metropolitan
AQMD, Placer County APCD, and Feather River AQMD only) and CAA section
185 fees (El Dorado County AQMD, Placer County APCD, Feather River
AQMD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD only). EPA has already received SIP revision
submittals addressing most of the additional SIP requirements for these
two areas and has received all of the related SIP revision submittals
for San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin. EPA is not
proposing a SIP revision schedule for any SIP requirements for which
SIP submittals have already been received.
    Finally, consistent with our discretionary authority under CAA
sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4), we propose to similarly reclassify
Indian country within the four areas consistent with the
reclassification requests for the surrounding non-Indian country lands
and have invited consultation with interested tribes concerning this
issue. We note that although eligible tribes may seek EPA approval of
relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of the affected tribes
will be required to submit an implementation plan to address these
reclassifications.
    EPA requests public comment on this proposal.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to Executive Order 12866. Voluntary

reclassifications under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA are based solely
upon requests by the State, and EPA is required under the CAA to grant
them. These actions do not, in and of themselves, impose any new
requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition, because the
statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to the
differently classified areas, and because those requirements are
automatically triggered by reclassification, reclassification does not
impose a materially adverse impact under Executive Order 12866. For
this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    In addition, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and that
this proposed rule 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), because EPA is
required to grant requests by states for voluntary reclassifications
and such reclassifications in and of themselves do not impose any
federal intergovernmental mandate.
    Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
    Several Indian tribes have Indian country located within the
boundaries of the four subject ozone nonattainment areas. EPA
implements federal Clean Air Act programs, including reclassifications,
in these areas of Indian country. EPA has concluded that this proposed
rule might have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order
13175, but would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes,
nor would it preempt Tribal law. As discussed in section III.B.3 of
this document, the proposed rule would not affect implementation of new
source review for new or modified stationary sources proposed in the
Indian country areas proposed for reclassification, but might affect
projects proposed in these areas that require Federal permits,
approvals, or funding. Such projects are subject to the requirements of
EPA's General Conformity rule, and Federal permits, approvals, or
funding for the projects may be more difficult to attain because of the
lower de minimis thresholds triggered by reclassification.
    Given the potential implications, EPA contacted tribal officials
early in the process of developing this proposed rule to provide an
opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into its development.
On July 31, 2008, we sent letters to leaders of the 21 tribes with
Indian country areas in the four subject nonattainment areas seeking
their input on how we could best communicate with the tribes on the
rulemaking effort. We received responses from nine tribes, of whom four
indicated interest in face-to-face meetings, as one of several means of
communication. We have met with two tribes that sought specific
meetings on the reclassifications: Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o
Mission Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. We propose to
continue with this process of communicating with the tribes until we
promulgate the final rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
    This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications
because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This proposed action does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
CAA.
    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because EPA interprets Executive
Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section
5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it grants a voluntary reclassification, and EPA's
approval is mandatory.
    As discussed above, a voluntary reclassification under section
181(b)(3) of the CAA is based solely on the request of a State and EPA
is required to grant such a request. In this context, it would be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it grants a State's
request for a voluntary reclassification, to use voluntary consensus
standards. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
also do not apply. In addition, this proposed rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. As stated earlier in this proposed
rule, EPA is proposing action granting the State's requests for
voluntary reclassifications. The plain language of section 181(b)(3) of
the CAA mandates that we ``shall'' approve such a request if it is made
in accordance with the requirements of the Act, and, as such, does not
provide the Agency with the discretionary authority to address concerns
raised outside the Act, including those contained in Executive Order
12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: August 18, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-20732 Filed 8-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 43594-43595]
[DOCID:fr26jy10-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62530; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-96]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating
to Trading Halts in Options During a Trading Pause in the Underlying
Securities

July 19, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on July 14, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Phlx
Rule 1047 (Trading Rotations, Halts and Suspensions) to enhance the
recently-implemented options halt rule whenever trading in the
underlying security has been paused by the primary listing market (the
``options halt rule'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The options halt rule is also known as the options pause
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rule 1047 to enhance the
recently-implemented options halt rule to indicate that if trading has
not been resumed on the primary listing market for the underlying
security once ten minutes has passed after an underlying security was
paused, the Exchange may resume options trading if trading has resumed
on at least one national securities exchange; and that the Exchange
will continue certain processes during the halt (maintain booked
orders, accept orders, and process cancels).
    On June 10, 2010, the Exchange filed an immediately effective
proposal to establish the options halt rule in new subsection (e) to
Rule 1047.\4\ Subsection (e) states that trading on the Exchange in any
option contract shall be halted whenever trading in the underlying
security has been paused by the primary listing market. The rule states
further that trading in such halted options contracts may be resumed
upon a determination by the Exchange that the conditions that led to
the pause are no longer present and that the interests of a fair and
orderly market are best served by a resumption of trading, which in no
circumstances will be before the Exchange has received notification
that the underlying security has resumed trading on at least one
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62269 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34491, (June 17, 2010) (Phlx-2010-82)(notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness regarding options halt rule). The
Exchange proposed the options halt rule after consultation with
Commission staff regarding uniform market-wide trading pause
standards for certain individual stocks that experience rapid price
movement and for individual equity options overlying those stocks.
For a similar options halt rule proposed by another options
exchange, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62270 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34510, (June 17, 2010) (NASDAQ-2010-071) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness regarding options halt rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the same day as the Exchange's options halt rule filing, Chicago
Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') filed an options halt that is similar
to the Exchange's options halt rule but has some additional
elements.\5\ The Exchange's current filing is based on the CBOE filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The additional elements include the following: that if
trading has not been resumed on the primary listing market for the
underlying security once ten minutes passed after an underlying
security was paused, the Exchange may resume options trading if at
least one market has resumed trading in the underlying; and that the
Exchange will continue certain processes during the halt (maintain
booked orders, accept orders, and process cancels). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62272 (June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34509, (June
17, 2010) (CBOE 2010-055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it should continue certain processes and
procedures independently of an options trading halt. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to state in Rule 1047(e)(ii) that during the options
halt, the Exchange will maintain existing orders on the book, accept
orders, and process cancels.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that it should have the ability to
resume options trading within certain parameters after an underlying
halt. Specifically, The Exchange proposes to state in subsection (e)(i)
that if trading has not been resumed on the primary listing market for
the underlying security after ten minutes have passed

since the underlying security was paused by the primary listing market,
the Exchange may resume trading in options contracts if the underlying
security has resumed trading on at least one national securities
exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ No changes to the Exchange's trading processes are otherwise
contemplated by this proposal. For example, transactions that occur
between the time the pause is imposed on the listing market and the
halt is processed on PHLX may be nullified pursuant to Rule
1092(c)(iv)(B). And orders in the affected option that are received
during the halt on the Exchange will be treated as pre-opening
orders and will be included in the re-opening process upon the
resumption of trading on the listing market for the underlying
security pursuant to Rule 1017(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposals, individually and
together, enhance and strengthen the options halt rule and its
application. The proposals will be immediately implemented upon
effectiveness of the filing.
    The Exchange believes that the options halt rule as amended ensures
that the Exchange has the ability to maintain fair and orderly markets
in options upon the imposition of a single stock trading pause by the
listing market for the underlying security.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposal benefits customers by enhancing the current
options halt rule to clarify the circumstances under which the Exchange
may resume options trading, and that the Exchange will continue certain
order processing and cancellation functions during a halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder \10\
because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate. The Exchange has asked the Commission to
waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become
operative upon filing. The Commission notes that the proposed rule
change clarifies certain aspects of the Exchange's rule regarding how
orders will be handled during options trading halts caused by a pause
in the trading of the underlying security and also clarifies when the
Exchange may resume trading when a trading pause in the underlying
security is prolonged for unknown reasons. The proposed rule change
does not raise any new substantive issues. For these reasons, the
Commission believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-96 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-2010-96. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-2010-96 and
should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18166 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14357-14358]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER96-1947-029; ER07-1000-008.
    Applicants: Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, Griffith Energy LLC, LS
Power Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Third Supplement to Updated Market Power Analysis of
LS Power Marketing, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120117-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2819-001.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Allete, Inc submits reformatted seasonal Simultaneous
Import Limit Studies-Triennial Market Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 2/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120221-0004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-502-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2012-02-29 CAISO's GIP Phase 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 1/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1173-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Electric Power
Service Corporation.
    Description: AEP submits Indiana Michigan Power Co. FRR Capacity
Formula Rate Filing to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1176-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 02-29-12 Schedule 38 to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1177-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to the PJM Tariff re Interconnection Queue
Reforms to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1178-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to the OA Definitions and OA Schedule 6.1.2
through 6.1.6 to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1179-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Integrated Marketplace to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1180-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Service Agreement to be effective 4/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1181-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Revision to OATT Attachment M to be effective 3/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1182-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Clean Energy Generator Interconnection and WDT Service
Agreements to be effective 4/28/2010.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1183-000.
    Applicants: UGI Development Company.
    Description: UGI Development Reactive Supply and Voltage Control-
Hunlock to be effective 3/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1184-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: Mar 2012 Membership Filing to be effective 2/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5261.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1185-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 03-01-12 Demand Curves Filing to be effective 5/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 3/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120301-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1186-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Guernsey Solar Station WDT SGIA to be effective 3/1/
20120.
    Filed Date: 3/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120301-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1187-000.
    Applicants: UGI Development Company.
    Description: UGI Development Company Notice of Cancellation.
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5312.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-4-000.
    Applicants: Exelon Corporation, Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC,
Commonwealth Edison Company, Cow Branch Wind Power, L.L.C., CR
Clearing, LLC, Exelon Energy Company, Exelon Framingham LLC, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, Exelon New Boston LLC, Exelon New England
Power Marketing, L.P., Exelon West Medway, Exelon Wind 4, LLC, Exelon
Wyman LLC, Harvest Windfarm, LLC, Michigan Wind 1, LLC, Michigan Wind
2, LLC, PECO Energy Company, Tuana Springs Energy, LLC, Wind Capital
Holdings, LLC.
    Description:
    Filed Date: 2/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120229-5305.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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
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 1, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5766 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P