[Federal Register: March 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 10730-10732]
[DOCID:fr02mr06-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53357; File No. SR-BSE-2005-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 2, 3, and 4 to Proposed Rule Change
To Modify the Information Contained in a Directed Order on the Boston
Options Exchange

February 23, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 25, 2005, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the BSE. On December
20, 2005, the BSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\
The proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1 were published for comment
in the Federal Register on December 29, 2005.\4\ The Commission
received eight comment letters.\5\ In response to the concerns raised
in the comment letters and discussions with Commission staff, the BSE
filed Amendments No. 2, 3, and 4 on February 7, 2006, February 15,
2006, and February 21, 2006, respectively.\6\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendments No. 4 to the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the BSE amended the rule text of Chapter
V, Section 14(e) of the Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'') Rules to
clarify that the identities of Options Participants that send
Directed Orders to the Trading Host are not anonymous.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Act No. 53015 (December
22, 2005), 70 FR 77207.
    \5\ See letters to Nancy Morris, Secretary, Commission, from
Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director & General Counsel, Citadel,
dated January 11, 2006 and January 12, 2006 (``Citadel Letters'');
from Michael Simon, General Counsel, International Securities
Exchange (``ISE''), dated January 19, 2006 (``ISE Letter''); from
James Gray, Chairman, optionsXpress Holdings, Inc., dated January,
19, 2006 (``optionsXpress Letter''); from Thomas Peterffy, Chairman,
and David M. Battan, Vice President, Interactive Brokers Group,
dated January 24, 2006 (``IB Letter''); from David Chavern, Vice
President and Chief of Staff, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dated
January 25, 2006 (``Chamber of Commerce Letter''); and from Neal L.
Wolkoff, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, American Stock
Exchange, dated February 3, 2006 and February 7, 2006 (``Amex
Letters'').
    \6\ Amendment No. 2 superseded and replaced the original filing
and Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 3 superseded and replaced the
original filing and Amendments No. 1 and 2. Amendment No. 4
supersedes and replaces the original filing and all previous
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The BSE proposes to amend its rules governing its Directed Order
process and to modify the information contained in a Directed Order on
BOX. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Facility

* * * * *

Chapter VI Market Makers

* * * * *

Section 5 Obligations of Market Makers

    (a)-(b) No Change
    (c) When acting as agent for a Directed Order, a Market Maker
must comply with subparagraphs (i)-(iii) of this Paragraph (c).
    i. A Market Maker shall not receive a Directed Order other than
through the BOX Trading Host. A Market Maker that receives a
Directed Order shall not, under any circumstances, reject the
receipt of the Directed Order from the BOX Trading Host. A Market
Maker who desires to accept Directed Orders must systemically
indicate [they are an executing participant] each day [that] and
whenever the Market Maker [wishes to receive Directed Orders]
reconnects after disconnection during the day that it is willing to
accept Directed Orders (``Executing Participant'' or ``EP''). If a
Market Maker does not systemically indicate that [they are] it is an
[e]Executing Participant, the BOX Trading Host will not forward any
Directed Orders to the Market Maker. In such a case, the BOX Trading
Host will send the order directly to the BOX Book. Prior to
accepting a Directed Order through the Trading Host, an EP must
inform BOX of the OFPs from which it has agreed to accept Directed
Orders through the Trading Host (``Listed OFPs'' or ``LOFPs''). The
Trading Host will then only send to the EP Directed Orders from
LOFPs. Such orders will be sent to the EP on an anonymous basis.
    ii.-iii. No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the BSE 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 BSE 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
    Amendment No. 4 supersedes and replaces the previous amendments and
the original filing in its entirety. The original rule filing and
Amendment No. 1 proposed to clarify that, when Directed Orders are sent
to a Market Maker, they contain an identifier associated with the firm
that sent the Directed Order. In response to the original filing, the
BSE received comments both in support of and opposing the proposal. The
commenters opposing the proposal argue that the lack of anonymity of
Directed Orders allows the Market Maker receiving such orders to
discriminate among the firms for which it will seek to execute Directed
Orders, and suggest that this selection process is discriminatory, may
discourage aggressive quoting, and is inconsistent with the Act.\7\ The
commenter supporting the proposal argues that the lack of anonymity of
Directed Orders encourages greater levels of price improvement, allows

Market Makers to protect themselves from predatory firms that engage in
anti-competitive behavior, and is consistent with the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Citadel Letters, ISE Letter, Chamber of Commerce Letter,
optionsXpress Letter, and Amex Letters, supra note 5.
    \8\ See IB Letter, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While, as is discussed more fully below, the BSE completely
disagrees with the core concern expressed by the commenters opposing
the original proposal, the BSE does believe that it is appropriate to
amend its proposal to permit EPs to choose the firms from which they
will accept Directed Orders while providing complete anonymity for
Directed Orders that are passed on to the Executing Participant
(``EP'') for possible representation in a PIP auction.\9\ The BSE
believes that certain commenters have materially mischaracterized the
Directed Order process. The BSE assumes this mischaracterization is in
the pursuit of enlisting the Commission to support a market model that
better suits its firm-centric business approach. In order to more fully
address this mischaracterization, the BSE starts by first providing a
brief overview of the Directed Order process. Subsequently, the BSE
explains why it believes that the identification of the Order Flow
Provider (``OFP'') in the Directed Order process is not only
appropriate and consistent with applicable legal standards but also
would increase investor welfare by expanding, relative to the approach
suggested by the commenter, the amount of price improvement provided
investors. Finally, the BSE offers an explanation of the amendment to
its proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52827 (November 23,
2005), 70 FR 72139 (December 1, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-56) (generally
approving proposal by the Pacific Exchange to ``add a provision that
requires Users to be given permission by DMMs in order to send a
Directed Order to that DMM.''); see also Rule 229A(b)(1) of the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange (generally providing for directed orders
which are defined as orders that a member organization directs to a
particular specialist pursuant to an agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the BSE's Directed Order process, Market Makers on BOX are
able to handle orders on an agency basis directed to them by OFPs. An
OFP sends a Directed Order to BOX with a designation of the Market
Maker to whom the order is to be directed. BOX then routes the Directed
Order to the appropriate Market Maker. Under Chapter VI, section
5(c)(ii) of the BOX Rules, a Market Maker only has two choices when he
receives a Directed Order: (1) Submit the order to the PIP process; or
(2) send the order back to BOX for placement onto the BOX Book.
    Under Chapter VI, section 5(c)(i) of the BOX Rules, a Market Maker
who desires to accept Directed Orders must systemically indicate that
it is an EP each day the Market Maker wishes to receive Directed Orders
from the BOX Trading Host. Further, the BOX system requires a Market
Maker to systematically indicate that it is an EP during any day the
Market Maker has disconnected from the system and seeks to
reconnect.\10\ If a Market Maker does not systemically indicate that it
is an EP, then the BOX Trading Host will not forward any Directed
Orders to that Market Maker. In such a case, the BOX Trading Host will
send the order directly to the BOX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Telephone conversation between Susie Cho, Special Counsel,
Jan Woo, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and
Alden Adkins, General Counsel, BSE, on February 23, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter VI, section 5(c)(i) prohibits a Market Maker from rejecting
a Directed Order. The BSE wishes to clarify this to mean that upon
systematically indicating its desire to accept Directed Orders, the BOX
system prevents a Market Maker that receives a Directed Order from
either rejecting the receipt of the Directed Order from the BOX Trading
Host or rejecting the Directed Order back to the OFP who sent it.
    The BSE notes that in all events, whether a Market Maker elects to
accept Directed Orders or chooses systematically not to accept any
Directed Orders, its displayed best bid and offer are firm and
accessible for automatic executions by all order submitters. In other
words, the Directed Order process is a discretionary service that
Market Makers may choose to provide or not, above and beyond satisfying
their core Market Maker obligations of providing continuous two-sided
firm quotations on a non-discriminatory basis. Just as Market Makers
may and do choose to provide, or not, other discretionary services,
such as payment for order flow, the BSE believes that Market Makers
also may identify the firms for which they may choose to provide such
discretionary services.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id.; see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47351
(February 11, 2003), 68 FR 8055 (February 19, 2003) (SR-NASD-2002-
60). As stated in the adopting release, the New York Stock Exchange
comment letter on the Primex rule proposal argued that
``participants may selectively trade against agency orders alone by
using a mechanism to screen out professional orders.'' The Nasdaq
Stock Market responded ``that this feature ensures that any price
improvement or enhanced liquidity opportunities be reserved for
public customers, and not necessarily professional traders who could
otherwise take advantage of the System's benefits and `pre-empt' the
ability of a public customer to receive such benefits.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47351 (February 11, 2003), 68 FR
8055, 8058 (February 19, 2003) (SR-NASD-2002-60). See generally
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42455 (February 24, 2000), 65 FR
11,388 (March 2, 2000) (stating that the Primary Market Makers and
Competitive Market Makers on the ISE ``will have the ability to set
parameters regarding their willingness to trade generally with a
broker-dealer's proprietary order.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BOX system provides Market Makers with information regarding
the identity of the firms from which a Directed Order originates.\12\
The BSE believes that this is not inconsistent with the fact that the
Directed Order process is a discretionary service and with the
statute--which does not prohibit broker-dealers from determining which
customer for whom it will provide a discretionary service (again, as
used here to mean a service the broker-dealer is not legally required
to provide at all)--but also is highly desirable. As is true with
respect to any discretionary service, without some control over the
OFPs from which Market Makers will accept Directed Orders, Market
Makers could be expected to provide less of the service. This is
specifically true with respect to the Directed Order process because
the customer protections built into the Directed Order process, absent
the ability to control the OFPs for which it will provide the service,
could and almost certainly would have the unintended consequences of
creating an opportunity for Options Participants to engage in abusive
practices that jeopardize the ability of all Market Makers to price
improve customer orders. Some Options Participants, including Market
Makers, could send large numbers of proprietary Directed Orders to
competitors using strategies that effectively amount to arbitraging the
PIP auction against previous executions obtained on exchanges that do
not provide price improvement opportunities. The EP receiving these
Directed Orders either will end up providing a competitor's order price
improvement, or yielding priority (if it declines to submit the order
to the PIP auction) and yet still guarantee his Firm Quote for three
seconds regardless of whether market prices change during that time.
The latter outcome is particularly problematic since, at a minimum, the
EP is forced to forgo whatever time priority he may have had over his
competitors at the top of the BOX book for the option series in the
Directed Order. Moreover, the EP is also obligated to freeze his quote
for three seconds and trade with any unexecuted Directed Order quantity
(but only if no other Market Maker wants to trade with the Directed
Order). Essentially this means the EP will trade with the

declined Directed Order only when no one else wishes to interact with
the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Telephone conversation between Susie Cho, Special Counsel,
Jan Woo, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and
Alden Adkins, General Counsel, BSE, on February 23, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BSE's original proposal addressed this unfair competitive
situation by enabling EPs to limit Directed Orders from hostile
competitors and to provide price improvement to the customers for whom
the Directed Order process was intended. Without this protection, the
BSE believes that EPs will have to modify their risk assessment and
therefore give less price improvement to everyone--or perhaps stop
giving price improvement at all. This would significantly harm the
retail investors who have benefited from the BOX price improvement
system since its inception.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Over half of marketable public customer orders sent to BOX
in 2005 received price improvement--slightly under 3,000 public
customer orders each day, with an average price improvement per
contract of over $2.50. Price improvement particularly benefited
small customer orders, as over 85% of all price improvement was for
orders of 20 contracts or fewer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BSE's amended proposal seeks to maintain these very significant
investor benefits of the original proposal by allowing EPs to provide
the Exchange a list of firms to which the EP will provide Directed
Order services. At the same time the BSE also believes that it is
appropriate to modify the original proposal to prohibit Directed Orders
delivered to EPs from identifying the firm from which the order comes.
This would protect the anonymity of individual orders of Options
Participants and their Directed Orders entered into the Trading Host.
An EP has no need to know the identity of the Options Participant
sending a Directed Order on an order-by-order basis once the threat
from competitors has been mitigated. The BSE believes that the decision
to price improve, or not, an anonymous Directed Order would be based
only on objective factors.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal, as amended, is consistent
with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and
section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 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 that is 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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 4
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 No. SR-BSE-2005-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2005-52. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the BSE. 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-BSE-2005-52 and should be submitted on or before March
23, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2929 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 47247-47248]
[DOCID:fr15se09-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13123-002--California Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage
Project]

Eagle Crest Energy Company; Notice of Proposed Restricted Service
List for a Programmatic Agreement for Managing Properties Included in
or Eligible for Inclusion In the National Register of Historic Places

September 8, 2009.
    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular
phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The restricted service list should
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the California State
Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter, SHPO) and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council) pursuant to the
Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470 f), to
prepare and execute a programmatic agreement for managing properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places at the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project No. 13123-
002.
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
SHPO, would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for
all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license
until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The
Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the Eagle
Mountain Pumped Storage Project would be fulfilled through the
programmatic agreement, which the Commission proposes to draft in
consultation with certain parties listed below. The executed
programmatic agreement would be incorporated into any Order issuing a
license.
    For the purpose of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we
propose to restrict the service list for the aforementioned project as
follows:

Don Klima or Representative Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
The Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Suite 803,
Washington, DC 20004;
Stephen Lowe or Representative, Eagle Crest Energy Company, One El
Paseo West Building, 74-199 El Paseo Drive, Suite 204, Palm Desert, CA
92260;
Cherilyn E. Widell, SHPO, or Representative, CA Office of Historic
Preservation, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814;
Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, or Representative, Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians, 5401 Dinah Shore Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92264;
Pattie Tuck, THPO, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, 5401 Dinah
Shore Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92264;
Diana L. Chihuahua, or Representative, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians, P.O. Box 1160, Thermal, CA 92274;
Ron Escobar, Chemehuevi Reservation, P.O. Box 1976, Havasu Lake, CA
92363;
John Gomez, Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, 56310 Highway 371,
Suite B, Anza, CA 92539;
Robert Martin, Chairman, or Representative, Morongo Band of Mission
Indians, 11581 Potrero Road, Banning, CA 92220;
Director or Representative, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 22835 Calle
San Juan De Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553;
Donald H. Clarke, Law Offices of GKRSE, 1500 K Street, NW., Suite 330,
Washington, DC 20005;
Michael Contreras, Jr., Morongo Band of Mission Indians, 13000 Fields
Road, Banning, CA 92220;
Luther Salgado, Sr., or Representative, Cahuilla Band of Indians, P.O.
Box 391741, Anza, CA 92539.

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including properties of traditional religious and cultural
importance to an Indian tribe. If historic properties would be
identified within the motion, please use a separate page, and label it
NON-PUBLIC Information.
    The original and 8 copies of any such motion must be filed with
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,

and must be served on each person whose name appears on the official
service list. Please put the following on the first page: Eagle
Mountain Pumped Storage Project No. 13123-002. Motions may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be
effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice
will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15 day
period.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22090 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60968-60975]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23979]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0532; FRL-10000-21-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Approval
of Operating Permit Program for Iowa and Nebraska; Definition of
Chemical Process Plants Under State Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Regulations and Operating Permit Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIP) for Iowa,
Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska and is also proposing to approve
revisions to the Operating Permit Programs for Iowa and Nebraska. The
SIP revisions incorporate changes to the definition of chemical process
plants under the States' Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
regulations and change the same definition in the approved State
operating permit programs. Consistent with an EPA regulation completed
in 2007, this action approves several States' rules that modify the
definition of chemical process plant to exclude ethanol manufacturing
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes. This
will clarify that the PSD major source applicability threshold in the
SIPs for these ethanol plants is 250 tons per year (tpy) (rather than
100 tpy) and removes the requirement to include fugitive emissions when
determining if the source is major for PSD. In addition, this action
approves changes to Iowa's and Nebraska's Title V operating permit
programs that remove the requirement to include fugitive emissions when
determining if a source is major for Title V. The EPA concludes that
the changes to the State rules described herein are approvable because
they are consistent with EPA regulations governing State PSD and Title
V programs and will not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2019-0532 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7714; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is Being Addressed in this Document?
III. Background
    A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants
    B. Title V Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants
    C. Ethanol Rule
    D. Petitions for Review and Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule
IV. What SIP Revisions are being Proposed by the EPA?
V. What Operating Permit Plan Revisions are being Proposed by the
EPA?
VI. Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
VII. What Action is the EPA Taking?
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-
0532, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SIPs received by EPA
from Iowa on November 15, 2007, Kansas on November 23, 2009, Missouri
on December 7, 2009, and March 20, 2019, and Nebraska on August 28,
2007, and September 11, 2018. The EPA is also proposing to approve Iowa
and Nebraska's Operating Permit Program revisions. These revisions
conform the State rules to changes to EPA regulations reflected in the
EPA's final rule entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
Nonattainment New Source Review (NA NSR), and Title V: Treatment of
Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the ``Major Emitting
Facility'' Definition'' (hereinafter referred to as the ``2007 Ethanol
Rule'') as published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2007 (72 FR

24059). The 2007 Ethanol Rule amends the PSD definition of ``major
stationary source'' to exclude certain ethanol facilities from the
``chemical process plant'' source category and clarifies that the PSD
major source applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants is 250
tpy (rather than 100 tpy). The 2007 Ethanol Rule also removed the
requirement to include fugitive emissions when determining if the
source is major for PSD and Title V permitting. On October 21, 2019,
the EPA responded to a petition for reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule, and the EPA denied the petition with respect to the revisions of
the PSD Regulations reflected in that rule (as described in more detail
below). The EPA is now proposing to approve these SIPs and operating
permits program revisions that are based on a part of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule.

III. Background

A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants

    Under the CAA, there are two potential thresholds for determining
whether a source is a major emitting facility that is potentially
subject to the construction permitting requirements under the PSD
program; one threshold is 100 tpy per pollutant, and the other is 250
tpy per pollutant. Section 169(1) of the CAA lists twenty-eight source
categories that qualify as major emitting facilities if their emissions
exceed the 100 tpy threshold. If the source does not fall within one of
twenty-eight source categories listed in section 169, then the 250 tpy
threshold is applicable.
    One of the source categories in the list of twenty-eight source
categories to which the 100 tpy threshold applies is chemical process
plants. Since the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for
chemical process plants includes facilities primarily engaged in
manufacturing ethanol fuel, the EPA and States had previously
considered such facilities to be subject to the 100 tpy thresholds.
    As a result of this classification, pursuant to the EPA regulations
adopted under section 302(j), chemical process plants were also
required to include fugitive emissions for determining the potential
emissions of such sources. Thus, prior to promulgation of the 2007
Ethanol Rule, the classification of fuel and industrial ethanol
facilities as chemical process plants had the effect of requiring these
plants to include fugitive emissions of criteria pollutants when
determining whether their emissions exceed the applicability thresholds
for the PSD and non-attainment NSR permit programs.

B. Title V Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants

    The CAA also establishes requirements for determining whether
sources must obtain Title V operating permits. All major sources and
sources subject to specific CAA requirements must obtain such permits.
For purposes of the Title V operating permit program, a major source is
defined as any source that has actual or potential emissions at or
above the major source thresholds reflected in other parts of the CAA.
Under the general definition of ``major stationary source'' in section
302(j) of the CAA, the major source threshold for any air pollutant is
100 tons/year. Under the NSR program, lower thresholds for major
sources can apply in nonattainment areas depending on the pollutant and
severity of the nonattainment area classification. In addition, the
major source thresholds for ``hazardous air pollutants'' (HAP) are 10
tons/year for a single HAP or 25 tons/year for any combination of HAP.
A source with emissions that exceed one of these thresholds (as
applicable) is required to obtain a Title V operating permit.
    Section 502 of the CAA and EPA regulations provide that sources
that belong to one of twenty-eight categories listed in 40 CFR 70.2
must include fugitive emissions in determining whether they exceed the
100 tpy major source threshold for any ``air pollutant.'' This list of
twenty-eight source categories may also be included in approved state
operating permit regulations.

C. Ethanol Rule

    On May 1, 2007, the EPA published in the Federal Register the 2007
Ethanol Rule (72 FR 24060). This final rule amended the EPA's PSD and
NA NSR regulations to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that
produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes from the ``chemical
process plants'' category under the regulatory definition of ``major
stationary source''.
    This change to the EPA's NSR regulations affected the threshold
used to determine PSD applicability for these ethanol production
facilities, clarifying that such facilities were subject to the 250 tpy
major source threshold. The 2007 Ethanol Rule also included changes to
other provisions which established that ethanol facilities need not
count fugitive emissions when determining whether such a source is
``major'' under the Federal PSD, NA NSR, and Title V permitting
programs.

D. Petitions for Review and Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol Rule

    On July 2, 2007, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
petitioned the D.C. Circuit to review the 2007 Ethanol Rule. On that
same day, the EPA received a petition for administrative
reconsideration and request for stay of the 2007 Ethanol Rule from
NRDC. On March 27, 2008, the EPA denied NRDC's 2007 administrative
petition for reconsideration.
    On March 2, 2009, the EPA received a second petition for
reconsideration and request for stay from NRDC.
    In 2009 NRDC also filed a petition for judicial review challenging
the EPA's March 27, 2008, denial of NRDC's 2007 administrative petition
in the D.C. Circuit. This challenge was consolidated with NRDC's
challenge to the 2007 Ethanol Rule. In August of 2009, the D.C. Circuit
granted a joint motion to hold the case in abeyance, and the case has
remained in abeyance.
    On October 21, 2019, the EPA partially granted and partially denied
NRDC's 2009 administrative petition for reconsideration. Specifically,
the EPA granted the request for reconsideration with regard to NRDC's
claim that the Ethanol Rule did not appropriately address the CAA
section 193 anti-backsliding requirements for nonattainment areas.

IV. What SIP revisions are being proposed by the EPA?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SIPs received from
Iowa on November 15, 2007; Kansas on November 23, 2009; Missouri on
December 7, 2009, and March 20, 2019; and Nebraska on August 28, 2007,
and September 11, 2018. These revisions adopt language that is the same
or consistent with that contained in the EPA's 2007 Ethanol Rule. (72
FR 24060, May 1, 2007). The EPA is not taking action on any revisions
with respect to Nonattainment New Source Review. The State regulations
that EPA is proposing to approve exclude ethanol production facilities
that produce ethanol by natural fermentation from the ``chemical
process plants'' category. The revisions thus clarify that an ethanol
facility is subject to a PSD major source threshold of 250 tpy and that
such sources need not count fugitive emissions to determine potential
emissions that are compared to this threshold. The revisions proposed
for approval in this action do not affect Nonattainment New Source
Review.
    The EPA is proposing to approve the following SIP revisions:

Iowa
    Iowa Administrative Code 567-33.3(1)--Definitions ``Major
Stationary Source'': ``Any one of the following stationary sources of
air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per
year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process
plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that
produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193
or 312140) . . .''
    Chapter 33 of the Iowa Administrative Code, which contains Iowa's
PSD regulations, applies to new or modified ``major stationary
sources'', as that term is defined in 567-33.3(1). As stated above,
567-33.3(1) was revised to exclude ethanol production facilities from
the ``chemical process plants'' major stationary source category such
that ethanol facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air
pollutant are not subject to PSD. The State effective date of Iowa's
revision to the definition of ``chemical process plants'' in chapter
33.3(1) is October 4, 2007.
    Iowa's definition of ``major stationary source'' also states that
``(t)he fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not be included
in determining for any of the purposes of this rule whether it is a
major stationary source, unless that source belongs to one of the
categories of stationary sources listed (in the definition of ``major
stationary source'') . . .''. As such, fugitive emissions from ethanol
facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is
subject to PSD.
Kansas
    Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-19-350--Prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality. This regulation adopts
by reference 40 CFR 52.21, as revised and amended on July 1, 2011, (76
FR 43507) and October 25, 2012, (77 FR 65107 (see 77 FR 65118-77 FR
65119)) with exceptions.
    The term ``major stationary source'' is defined in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as any of the following stationary sources of air
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: Chemical process plants (which
does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140). Title
40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive emissions from ethanol
production facilities from the ``chemical process plants'' category
such that fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether
the facility is subject to PSD.
    The State effective date of Kansas' incorporation by reference of
EPA's 2007 revision of the definition of ``chemical process plants'' in
40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) is October 23, 2009. Because Kansas has
adopted 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, ethanol facilities emitting less
than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and
fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in
determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
Missouri
    Missouri Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10 CSR 10-6.060,
Construction Permits Required. Section (8), Attainment and Unclassified
Area Major Permits, has been revised to incorporate all the paragraphs
of 40 CFR 52.21 by reference promulgated as of July 1, 2018, other than
(a) Plan disapproval, (q) Public participation, (s) Environmental
impact statements, and (u) Delegation of authority.
    The term ``major stationary source'' is defined in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as any of the following stationary sources of air
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: Chemical process plants (which
does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140). Title
40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive emissions from ethanol
production facilities from the ``chemical process plants'' category
such that fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether
the facility is subject to PSD.
    Because Missouri has adopted 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, ethanol
facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are
not subject to PSD, and fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are
not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
    Missouri also revised 10 CSR 10-6.060, Construction Permits
Required, section 7, Nonattainment Area Major Permits. Section (7)(A)
has been added as follows:
    (A) Definitions. Solely for the purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply to terms in place of definitions for which
the term is defined elsewhere, including the reference to 40 CFR 52.21
in paragraph (7)(B)6. of this rule.
    Section (7)(A)(1) has been added as follows:
    1. Chemical process plant--These plants include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in
NAICS codes 325193 or 312140.
    Section 7(B)(6) of 10 CSR 10-6.060 excludes fugitive emissions from
potential to emit calculations if the source is listed in 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(vii)(a) through (aa). However, Missouri's revision to
section (7), by adding section (7)(A) and section (7)(A)(1), results in
the inclusion of quantifiable fugitive emissions from ethanol
productions facilities in determining the potential to emit for
nonattainment new source review permits.
Nebraska
    Nebraska Title 129--Chapter 2--Definition of Major Source--Section
008.01: ``Any of the following stationary sources which emits, or has
the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR
pollutant: . . . chemical process plants (which does not include
ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural
fermentation included in North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140)''.
    Chapter 19 of title 129, which contains Nebraska's PSD regulations,
applies to the construction of any new ``major stationary source'' or
the major modification of any existing``major stationary source'', as
that term is defined in chapter 2, Section 008. As stated above,
section 008.01 was revised, with a State effective date of February 6,
2008, to exclude ethanol production facilities from the ``chemical
process plants'' major stationary source category such that ethanol
facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are
not subject to PSD. In addition, chapter 19, sections 005.05, 006.03,
and 016.02 exclude fugitive emissions from ethanol production
facilities in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
    In addition to the revisions to chapter 2, in their submittals from
November 19, 2010 and September 11, 2018, Nebraska requests for the EPA
to approve changes to chapter 17, section 001.02T. These changes relate
to the definition of chemical process plants under minor NSR. The EPA
is not taking any action on these changes.

V. What operating permit plan revisions are being proposed by the EPA?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the following revisions to Iowa and
Nebraska's Operating Permit Program

(title V) which result in the exclusion of fugitive emissions title V
threshold calculations for certain ethanol facilities:
Iowa
    Iowa Administrative Code 567-22.100--Definitions for Title V
Operating Permits: Iowa revised the explanation of ``chemical process
plants'' that is contained in the definition of ``stationary source
categories'' as follows: ``. . . (20) Chemical process plants--The term
chemical processing plant shall not include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in
NAICS codes 325193 or 312140''.
    Iowa's title V regulation at 567-22.101 requires any major source
to obtain a title V operating permit. 567-22.100 defines ``major
source'' as, among other things, a source that directly emits or has
the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to
regulation, including fugitive emissions unless the source belongs to
one of the stationary source categories listing in chapter 22. As
stated above, 567-22.100 was revised to exclude ethanol production
facilities from the ``chemical process plants'' category such that
fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether the
facility is subject to title V permitting.
Nebraska
    Nebraska title 129--chapter 2--Definition of Major Source--section
002.20 is revised as follows: ``Chemical process plants--The term
chemical processing plant shall not include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 325193 or
312140''.
    Nebraska's title V regulation, title 129 chapter 5--Operating
Permits--When Required, requires any ``major source'' as defined in
chapter 2 to apply for a Class I (major source) Operating permit.
Chapter 2 section 002 defines ``major source'' as ``. . . a major
stationary source of air pollutants is one that directly emits or has
the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant (including
any major source of fugitive emissions of any such pollutant, as
determined by rule by the Administrator of EPA).'' The rule goes on to
state that ``. . . fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not
be considered in determining whether it is a major stationary source
for the purposes of this subsection, unless the source belongs to one
of the following categories of stationary source[.]'' As stated above,
chapter 2, section 002.20 was revised to exclude ethanol production
facilities from the ``chemical process plants'' category such that
fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether the
facility is subject to title V permitting.
    Kansas and Missouri did not submit revisions to amend their
respective title V operating permit regulations and therefore EPA is
not taking action to revise Kansas and Missouri's title V Operating
Permit Programs.

VI. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    All of the aforementioned regulations are consistent with EPA's PSD
program requirements in 40 CFR 51.166 and title V program requirements
in 40 CFR part 70, as amended in the 2007 Ethanol Rule. Further, all
submissions have met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102.
    Iowa published a Notice of Intended Action in the Iowa
Administrative Bulletin on August 1, 2007. A public hearing was held on
September 5, 2007. The public comment period closed on September 6,
2007. Iowa received six sets of written comments during the public
comment period. Iowa provided a response to each public comment but did
not change the rule based on the comments.
    Kansas published the proposed changes in the Kansas Register May
21, 2009. A public hearing was held on July 29, 2009. Kansas received
three comment letters. Only one change was made to the proposed
regulations based on public comments and that change was not relevant
to this action.
    Missouri published the proposed changes in the Missouri Register on
December 31, 2008. A public hearing was held on February 3, 2009.
Missouri received 15 comments and made changes to the proposed
regulations that were not relevant to this action. Missouri made
additional changes to the regulations proposed to be approved by the
EPA in this action that were published in the Missouri Register on
August 1, 2018. Missouri received thirty-seven comments from nine
sources including EPA. Missouri made some changes to the proposed
regulations that are relevant to this action based on comments received
during the public comment period.
    Nebraska published the proposed changes in the Omaha World-Herald
on July 13, 2007. A public hearing was held on August 17, 2007.
Nebraska did not receive any adverse comments for the proposed changes.
    The SIP submissions also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40
CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, these revisions meet the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations. These revisions are also consistent with
applicable EPA requirements of title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70.
    A Technical Support Document (TSD) for each State revision,
available as part of this docket, contains an analysis of the potential
impact of the SIP and title V revisions on air quality and whether
approval of the SIP revisions will interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or any other CAA requirement. Existing ethanol
plants are listed with information from their permits, including
applicable requirements, current PSD status, and applicable Federal
rules that control emissions in lieu of PSD. The existing ethanol
plants are mapped along with the ambient air monitors to demonstrate
the relationship between ethanol production and air quality.
    Emissions from ethanol plants are compared to other emissions data
categories for four major pollutants revealing that for the major
pollutants associated with ethanol production, ethanol plants make up 1
percent or less of the total anthropogenic emissions of that pollutant
in all four States. EPA graphed air quality trends in each State, since
the date of promulgation of the 2007 Ethanol Rule, for all criteria
pollutants associated with ethanol production. The air quality trends
reveal that while ethanol production increased, air quality improved
for every pollutant monitored in each of the States.
    The EPA also describes requirements for each State's minor source
NSR program because the facilities that would be below the 250 tpy PSD
major source threshold under this rulemaking will still need to obtain
minor source construction permits. EPA further analyzes the impact of
increasing the threshold to 250 tpy on ozone and particulate matter
(PM) precursors in each State. The analysis for ozone and secondary PM
demonstrates that sources of this size will not cause any interference
with attainment or maintenance of the standard in these States.
    Based on the EPA's analysis in each TSD, the EPA proposes to
conclude that approval of this action will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171 of the CAA), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA as required under section 110(l).

VII. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri and Nebraska SIPs and the Iowa and Nebraska Operating Permit
Programs. We plan to take final action after consideration any comments
received on this notice of proposed rulemaking.
    The revisions to State rules that EPA proposed to approve change
the definition of ``major stationary source'' under the States' PSD
regulations and the Operating Permit Program for Iowa and Nebraska.
This action would approve changes to State regulations, which make
clear that the PSD applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants
is 250 tpy and remove the requirement to include fugitive emissions
when determining if an ethanol plant is major for PSD and, in Iowa and
Nebraska, title V permitting. The EPA has determined that these
revisions are consistent with EPA's PSD and title V regulations and
that approval of these revisions is consistent with the requirements of
CAA section 110(l) and will not adversely impact air quality. The EPA's
analysis is available in the individual State TSDs that are part of
this docket. This proposed action will ensure consistency between the
State and federally-approved rules and ensure Federal enforceability of
the State's revised air program rules.

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 29, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``567-33.3'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                          EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State
      Iowa citation               Title          effective date    EPA approval date          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 33--Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources--Prevention of
                                 Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
567-33.3................  Special Construction        4/18/2018  [Date of publication  Provisions of the 2010
                           Permit Requirements                    of the final rule     PM2.5 PSD--Increments,
                           for Major Stationary                   in the Federal        SILs and SMCs rule,
                           Sources in Areas                       Register], [Federal   published in the Federal
                           Designated                             Register citation     Register on October 20,
                           Attainment or                          of the final rule].   2010, relating to SILs
                           Unclassified (PSD).                                          and SMCs that were
                                                                                affected by the January
                                                                                22, 2013, U.S. Court of
                                                                                Appeals decision are not
                                                                                SIP approved. Iowa's
                                                                                rule incorporating EPA's
                                                                                2008 ``fugitive
                                                                                emissions rule''
                                                                                (published in the
                                                                                Federal Register on
                                                                                December 19, 2008) is
                                                                                not SIP-approved.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart R--Kansas

0
3. In Sec.  52.870, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``K.A.R. 28-19-350'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                         EPA-Approved Kansas Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State
    Kansas  citation              Title          effective date   EPA approval  date          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Construction Permits and Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
K.A.R. 28-19-350........  Prevention of              12/28/2012  [Date of publication  Provisions of the 2010
                           Significant                            of the final rule     PM2.5 PSD-Increments,
                           Deterioration (PSD)                    in the Federal        SILs and SMCs rule
                           of Air Quality.                        Register], [Federal   relating to SILs and
                                                                  Register citation     SMCs that were affected
                                                                  of the final rule].   by the January 22, 2013,
                                                                                U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                                                decision are not SIP
                                                                                approved. Provisions of
                                                                                the 2002 NSR reform rule
                                                                                relating to the Clean
                                                                                Unit Exemption,
                                                                                Pollution Control
                                                                                Projects, and exemption
                                                                                from recordkeeping
                                                                                provisions for certain
                                                                                sources using the actual-
                                                                                to-projected-actual
                                                                                emissions projections
                                                                                test are not SIP
                                                                                approved. In addition,
                                                                                we have not approved
                                                                                Kansas rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's 2008
                                                                                ``fugitive emissions
                                                                                rule'' (published in the
                                                                                Federal Register on
                                                                                December 19, 2008).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
4. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-6.060'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State
   Missouri  citation             Title          effective date    EPA approval date          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chapter 6-Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.060................  Construction Permits        3/30/2019  [Date of publication
                           Required.                              of the final rule
                                                                  in the Federal
                                                                  Register], [Federal
                                                                  Register citation
                                                                  of the final rule].
                                                                                Provisions of the 2010
                                                                                PM2.5 PSD--Increments,
                                                                                SILs and SMCs rule
                                                                                relating to SILs and
                                                                                SMCs that were affected
                                                                                by the January 22, 2013
                                                                                U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                                                decision are not SIP
                                                                                approved.
                                                                                Provisions of the 2002
                                                                                NSR reform rule relating
                                                                                to the Clean Unit
                                                                                Exemption, Pollution
                                                                                Control Projects, and
                                                                                exemption from
                                                                                recordkeeping provisions
                                                                                for certain sources
                                                                                using the actual-to-
                                                                                projected-actual
                                                                                emissions projections
                                                                                test are not SIP
                                                                                approved.
                                                                                In addition, we have not
                                                                                approved Missouri's rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's 2008
                                                                                ``fugitive emissions
                                                                                rule'' (published in the
                                                                                Federal Register on
                                                                                December 19, 2008).
                                                                                Although exemptions
                                                                                previously listed in 10
                                                                                CSR 10-6.060 have been
                                                                                transferred to 10 CSR 10-
                                                                                6.061, the Federally-
                                                                                approved SIP continues
                                                                                to include the following
                                                                                exemption, ``Livestock
                                                                                and livestock handling
                                                                                systems from which the
                                                                                only potential
                                                                                contaminant is odorous
                                                                                gas.''
                                                                                Section 9, pertaining to
                                                                                hazardous air
                                                                                pollutants, is not SIP
                                                                                approved.
                                                                                EPA previously approved
                                                                                the 3/30/2016 State
                                                                                effective date version
                                                                                of 10 CSR 10-6.060, with
                                                                                the above exceptions, in
                                                                                a Federal Register
                                                                                document published
                                                                                October 11, 2016. EPA is
                                                                                only approving Section
                                                                                7, subsection 7(A)(1),
                                                                                and Section 8 from the 3/
                                                                                30/2019 State effective
                                                                                date version of 10 CSR
                                                                                10-6.060. All remaining
                                                                                revisions to the 3/30/
                                                                                2019 version of 10 CSR
                                                                                10-6.060 are not SIP
                                                                                approved.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart CC--Nebraska

0
5. In Sec.  52.1420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``129-2'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State
   Nebraska  citation             Title          effective date   EPA approval  date          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                STATE OF NEBRASKA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Department of Environmental Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Title 129--Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
129-2...................  Definition of Major          2/6/2008  [Date of publication
                           Source.                                of the final rule
                                                                  in the Federal
                                                                  Register], [Federal
                                                                  Register citation
                                                                  of the final rule].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
6. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

0
7. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (u) under ``Iowa''.
0
b. Adding paragraph (q) under ``Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-
Lancaster County Health Department''.
    The additions read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits

* * * * *
Iowa
* * * * *
    (u) The Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions to
Iowa Chapter 22.100 ``Definitions for Title V Operating Permits'' on
November 15, 2007. The State revised the definition of ``Stationary
source categories'' by revising the definition of ``Chemical process
plants'' such that fugitive emissions from certain ethanol production
facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is
subject to Title V permitting. The State effective date is October 4,
2007. The proposed revision effective date is [date 30 days after date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department
* * * * *
    (q) The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality submitted
revisions to the Nebraska Administrative Code, title 129, chapter 2,
section 002.20 on November 19, 2010. Chapter 2, section 002.20 was
revised to exclude ethanol production facilities from the definition of
``chemical process plants'' such that fugitive emissions are not
considered in determining whether the facility is subject to Title V
permitting. The State effective date is February 6, 2008. The proposed
revision effective date is [date 30 days after date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-23979 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24858-24860]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1069; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANM-11]

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of
Class E Airspace; Salem, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E
surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface, and remove Class E surface area airspace designated
as an extension at McNary Field, Salem, OR. After a biennial review,
the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace area for the safety
and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-
1069; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANM-11, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this proposed incorporation by
reference material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Haga, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-1069/
Airspace Docket No. 14-ANM-11.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D surface area
airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removing Class E surface
area airspace as an extension at McNary Field, Salem, OR. After a
biennial review of the airspace, the FAA found modification of the
airspace necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations for
SIAPs at the airport. Class D airspace and Class E surface area
airspace would extend upward from the surface to and including 2,700
feet within a 4-mile radius northeast of McNary Field, extending to 6.2
miles to the southeast, and 8.1 miles from the southeast to the
northwest, excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of Independence State
Airport, OR. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface would be modified to within a 6.5-mile radius northeast of
McNary Field, extending to 8.2 miles to the southeast, and 9.1 miles
from the southeast to the northwest, excluding that airspace within 1.2
NM of Independence State Airport, OR.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at McNary Field, Salem, OR.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000: Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ANM OR D Salem, OR [Modified]

Salem, McNary Field, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]54'34'' N., long. 123[deg]00'09'' W.)
Independence, Independence State Airport, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'01'' N., long. 123[deg]11'54'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of McNary Field from the
330[deg] bearing from the airport clockwise to the 074[deg] bearing,
and that airspace within a 6.2-mile radius of McNary Field from the
074[deg] bearing from the airport clockwise to the 150[deg] bearing,
and that airspace within a 8.1-mile radius of McNary Field from the
150[deg] bearing from the airport clockwise to the 330[deg] bearing,
excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of Independence State Airport,
OR. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002: Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM OR E2 Salem, OR [Modified]

Salem, McNary Field, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]54'34'' N., long. 123[deg]00'09'' W.)
Independence, Independence State Airport, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'01'' N., long. 123[deg]11'54'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of McNary Field from the
330[deg] bearing from the airport clockwise

to the 074[deg] bearing, and that airspace within a 6.2-mile radius
of McNary Field from the 074[deg] bearing from the airport clockwise
to the 150[deg] bearing, and that airspace within a 8.1-mile radius
of McNary Field from the 150[deg] bearing from the airport clockwise
to the 330[deg] bearing, excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of
Independence State Airport, OR. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004: Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension
to a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM OR E4 Salem, OR [Removed]

Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Salem, OR [Modified]

Salem, McNary Field, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]54'34'' N., long. 123[deg]00'09'' W.)
Independence, Independence State, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'01'' N., long. 123[deg]11'54'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of McNary Field from the 330[deg] bearing
from the airport clockwise to the 074[deg] bearing, and that
airspace within a 8.2-mile radius of McNary Field from the 074[deg]
bearing from the airport clockwise to the 150[deg] bearing, and that
airspace within a 9.1-mile radius of McNary Field from the 150[deg]
bearing from the airport clockwise to the 330[deg] bearing,
excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of Independence State Airport,
OR.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 21, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, AJV-
W2.
[FR Doc. 2015-10048 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 4650]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filing

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

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1015-000.
    Applicants: XTO Energy Inc., et al.
    Description: Joint Petition of XTO Energy Inc., et al., for
Amendment to, and Extension of Limited Waiver Request and Request for
Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 1/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180123-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/18.

    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 5:00
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: January 26, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01977 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P