[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71568]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29048]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-68071A; File No. S7-08-12]
RIN 3235-AL12

Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based
Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital
Requirements for Broker-Dealers; Correction

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: Technical corrections are being made to the Commission's
Release No. 34-68071, which proposed capital and margin requirements
for security-based swap dealers (``SBSDs'') and major security-based
swap participants (``MSBSPs''), segregation requirements for SBSDs, and
notification requirements with respect to segregation for SBSDs and
MSBSPs, as well as increases to the minimum net capital requirements
for broker-dealers permitted to use the alternative internal model-
based method for computing net capital.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Dombal Swartz, Special Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Valentina Minak Deng, Attorney, at (202) 551-
5778, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Specifically, corrections are being made to
the table in footnote 172 on page 70233 and paragraph 6.c. of page
70332 of volume 77 of the Federal Register. The following corrections
are hereby made to Release No. 34-68071 (October 18, 2012), which was
published in FR Doc. 2012-26164 and appeared on page 70214 of the
Federal Register on November 23, 2012 (77 FR 70214):
    1. In footnote 172 in the first column of page 70233, the first row
of the table, which currently reads ``Time to Maturity and Deduction'',
is corrected to read: ``Time to Maturity Category--Deduction''.
    2. In the third column of page 70332, paragraph 6.c. identifying an
amendment to 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(c)(2)(ii), which currently reads ``In
paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing the phrase ``$5 billion'' and adding in
its place the phrase ``$6 billion''; and'', is corrected to read: ``In
paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing the phrase ``less than 50%'' and adding
in its place the phrase ``less than or equal to 50%''; and''.

    Dated: November 27, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29048 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66832-66833]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER21-201-003.
    Applicants: Atlantic City Electric Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Atlantic City Electric Company
submits tariff filing per 35: Atlantic City Electric Company Compliance
Filing in ER21-201 to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-203-003.
    Applicants: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
submits tariff filing per 35: Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. Compliance
Filing in ER21-203 to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-204-003.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Commonwealth Edison Company submits
tariff filing per 35: Commonwealth Edison Company Compliance Filing in
ER21-204 to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-205-003.
    Applicants: Delmarva Power & Light Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Delmarva Power & Light Company
submits tariff filing per 35: Delmarva Power & Light Compliance Filing
in ER21-205 to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-206-003.
    Applicants: Potomac Electric Power Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Potomac Electric Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35: PEPCO Compliance Filing in ER21-206 to be
effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-209-003.
    Applicants: PECO Energy Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: PECO Energy Company submits tariff
filing per 35: PECO Compliance Filing in ER21-209 to be effective 1/27/
2020.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2517-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): 2023-09-22_SA 3028
Ameren IL-Prairie Power Project #39 Macomb Substitute to be effective
9/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2813-001.
    Applicants: Castle Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Market-Based Rate
Application to be effective 11/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2903-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-09-22_SA 3277
Termination of EDF Renewables--OTP FCA (G359R) to be effective 9/23/
2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2904-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5694; Queue No. AF1-022 to be effective 11/21/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2905-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
09-22_SA 2314 MidAmerican Lehigh-Webster 4th Rev FOA to be effective 9/
23/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2906-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6108; Queue No. AE1-183 to be effective 11/21/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2907-000.
    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Pennsylvania Electric
Company submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: PENELEC Amends 10
ECSAs (5437 5438 5507 5508 5511 5512 5514 5515 5567 5568) to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2908-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-09-22_Attachment X,
Appendix 6-GIA, True-Up filing to be effective 10/21/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2909-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-09-22_SA 3241
Termination of Deuel Harvest Wind Energy-NSP-OTP FCA (J526) to be
effective 9/23/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2910-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Rate Schedule
FERC No. 354 to be effective 8/25/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2911-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation KMPA NITSA
Non-Conforming to be effective 9/6/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2912-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Alabama Power Company submits tariff
filing per 35.15: Camp Lawton Solar LGIA Termination Filing to be
effective 9/22/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2913-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Termination of Baldy Mesa LGIA
(TOT851-Q1413/SA No. 256) to be effective 11/22/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2914-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, Service
Agreement No. 7077; Queue No. AE2-176 to be effective 11/22/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2915-000.
    Applicants: Chesapeake Solar Project, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Chesapeake Solar Project, LLC
Application for MBR Authorization to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2916-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Public Service Electric and
Gas Company submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: PSE&G
Application for Abandoned Plant Incentive to be effective 11/22/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2917-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-09-22 Subscriber
Participating Transmission Owner Model Tariff Amendment to be effective
12/21/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2918-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEF-SECI RS No. 423
Reimbursement Agreement to be effective 11/22/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230922-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) 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>.
    For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Commission's Office of Public Participation
(OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in
Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including
landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: September 22, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21258 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68614]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0043]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0029; Approval and Coordination
of Requirements To Use the NETC Extracurricular for Training Activities

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0029; FEMA Form
119-17-1 (formerly 75-10), Request for Housing Accommodations; and FEMA
Form 119-17-2 (formerly 75-11), Request for Use of NETC Facilities.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Approval and Coordination of Requirements to Use the NETC
Extracurricular for Training Activities.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0029.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 119-17-1 (formerly 75-10),
Request for Housing Accommodations; and FEMA Form 119-17-2 (formerly
75-11), Request for Use of NETC Facilities.
    Abstract: FEMA established the National Emergency Training Center
(NETC), located in Emmitsburg, Maryland to offer training for the
purpose of emergency preparedness. The NETC site has facilities and
housing available for those participating in emergency preparedness.
When training space and/or housing are required for those attending the
training, a request for use of these areas must be made in advance and
this collection provides the mechanism for such requests to be made.
    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government;
State, local or Tribal Government; individuals or households; farms;
and business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 60.
    Frequency of Response: On Occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 12 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12 Hours.
    Estimated Cost: There is no annual capital, start-up, operations or
maintenance cost associated with this collection.

    Dated: November 2, 2010.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-28110 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-45-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 33997-33998]
[DOCID:fr20jn07-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-68-000]

NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation, Complainant, v. ISO New
England, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

June 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 11, 2007, NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation
(NSTAR) pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act and
Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission's
regulatons 18 CFR 385.206 (2006), tendered for filing this complaint
against ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE) disputing the ISO-NE's
administration of the Second Amended and Restated Reliability Must Run
Agreement between Exelon New Boston, LLC and ISO-NE governing the
operation of the New Boston facility.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public

Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on
the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 11, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11871 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Memorandum To: Lynne Tudor and Tom Wall, U. S. EPA From: Liz Strange and Dave Cacela, Stratus Consulting Inc.

Date: 5/ 21/ 02 Subject: Outline of § 316( b) Case Study Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment Data Per your request, this memorandum provides an outline of the links among facility impingement and entrainment ( I& E) data that were inputs to case study analyses, the methods used by Stratus Consulting to evaluate these data, and results of our evaluation. It is intended as an aid to reviewers who have requested clarification of the data evaluation process and related docket entries.

There are two major components of each case study analysis: ( 1) the evaluation of facility I& E data, including the development of metrics that express I& E losses in ways that are suitable inputs to economic analyses ( e. g., the conversion of egg and larval losses to an equivalent number of adult fish); and ( 2) the monetary valuation of I& E losses and the economic benefits expected to result from reducing these losses. This memorandum focuses on the first component, including the steps that Stratus Consulting followed to convert I& E numbers into metrics used in the case study economic analyses, and the corresponding docket entries for input data, methods, and results. Section 1 is an overview of the general approach used to compile and evaluate I& E data, and Section 2 provides an example for a specific case study facility.

1. General Approach Used to Compile and Evaluate I& E Data For each case study, raw I& E data were first compiled from facility documents and entered into an EXCEL workbook. One EXCEL workbook was prepared for each case study facility and labeled according to the name of the facility. Each of these workbooks is a separate docket entry, listed in the docket index under Author, Stratus Consulting Inc. Electronic copies of the files are contained in a CD ROM located at DCN 4 1305, as noted in the Comment field of each workbook docket entry.

The facility I& E data in the EXCEL workbooks were evaluated using the methods presented in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( this document is DCN 4 0003). Chapter A5 provides the equations used to calculate age 1 equivalents ( Section A5 3.1), foregone fishery yield ( Section A5 3.2), and production foregone ( Section A5 3.3) from the I& E numbers obtained from facility reports. The relationships among facility raw loss data and these metrics are outlined in Figure A5 1 in Chapter A5. Chapter A5 also discusses the approach used to estimate Stratus Consulting 5/ 21/ 02 2 Results Chapter 3 of Case Study Report ( Case Study Reports are Parts B through I of Case Study Document)

DCN 4 0003 Evaluation Methods Chapter A5 of Part A of Case Study Document DCN 4 0003 Input Data Facility I& E Data DCN 4 1305 reductions in harvested species resulting from the impingement and entrainment of forage species ( Section A5 3.4). Figure A5 2 outlines this procedure.

The results of the calculations discussed in Chapter A5 are presented for each case study in the third chapter of the case study report, entitled " Evaluation of I& E Data" ( case study reports are contained in Parts B through I of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003). Tables in the chapter " Evaluation of I& E Data" present facility estimates of numbers of organisms impinged and entrained per year and these numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents, foregone fishery yield, and production foregone. An appendix to this chapter presents species specific life history data used to perform these calculations. The References section of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) provides a complete listing of all information sources.

In some cases, the I& E data provided by the facilities required some additional manipulation in order to calculate age 1 equivalents, foregone fishery yield, or production foregone ( e. g., conversion of daily or monthly I& E rates to annual rates). Such case study specific analyses are discussed in the chapter " Evaluation of I& E Data" of the corresponding case study report ( contained in the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003).

The figure below outlines the links among data input files, methods, and results, and the corresponding docket numbers. Stratus Consulting 5/ 21/ 02 3 2. Example of Links Among Data Input Files, Methods, and Results This section provides an example of the links among data input files, methods, and results for the Brayton Point case study ( Part F of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003). EPA converted Brayton Point records of annual total numbers of impinged and entrained organisms to age 1 equivalents, foregone fishery yield, and production foregone using the equations presented in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). The facility I& E data that were used for these calculations are presented in worksheet 1 of the EXCEL workbook " brayton. input. data. xls," indexed in the docket as DCN 4 2037. An electronic copy of this workbook is contained in the CD ROM filed under DCN 4 1305. The results of these calculations are provided in the third chapter of the case study report, Chapter F3 of Part F of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). This chapter is entitled " Evaluation of I& E Data".

The following example gives a detailed elaboration of the steps involved in calculating the number of age 1 equivalents using data for weakfish entrainment at Brayton Point in 1979 and 1980. Although this example focuses on entrainment, the same basic procedure applies to impingement.

2.1 Equations Used to Calculate Age 1 Equivalents As discussed in Section A5 3.1 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), the Equivalent Adult Model is a method for expressing I& E losses as an equivalent number of individuals at some other life stage, referred to as the age of equivalency. EPA used this model to convert facility impingement and entrainment numbers to age 1 equivalents.

The basic equation used by EPA to calculate stage specific age 1 equivalent losses is presented in Section A5 3.1 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), and duplicated below:

AE1, j, k = L j, k S j, 1 ( Equation 5)

where:

AE1 j, k = the number of age 1 equivalents killed during life stage j in year k L j, k = the number of individuals killed during life stage j in year k S j, 1 = the cumulative survival rate for individuals passing from life stage j to age 1 ( equation 4)

The main elements of this equation include L j, k, the numbers of individuals impinged or entrained Stratus Consulting 5/ 21/ 02 4 during life stage j in year k, and S j, 1 the cumulative survival rate for individuals passing from life stage j to age 1.

In general, the loss rates, L j, k , used by EPA for age 1 equivalent calculations are the annual impingement and entrainment rates reported by each facility. However, in some cases EPA adjusted facility reported annual loss rates to account for current conditions or to estimate entrainment assuming 100% mortality. Such adjustments are described for particular case studies in the third chapter of the relevant case study report (" Evaluation of I& E Data") ( Parts B through I of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003).

In order to calculate S j, 1 for use in Equation 5 it is necessary to compile species specific life history data, including stage specific values for natural mortality ( M j), fishing mortality ( F j), and the fraction of individuals vulnerable to fishing mortality ( FV j). In cases where a particular life stage, j, is not fully recruited to the fishery, the effective fishing mortality, F effective is derived from F and FV as F effective =  log e( ( FV j* e( Fj)) + ( 1 F j) )

As discussed in Section A5 3.1 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), these life history data are used to estimate stage specific survival rates, S j:

S j = e ( Zj),

where Z j = M j + F effective, j and Z j, M j, are as defined above.

S j, 1, the expected cumulative survival rate from the stage of impingement or entrainment, j, through age 1, is then given by the product of all stage specific survival rates to age 1. The equation used to calculate S j, 1 is presented in Section A5 3.1 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), and duplicated below: Stratus Consulting 5/ 21/ 02 5 i j j i j j S S S   + = = max 1 * 1 ,

j, k k AE j j j AE 1 1 max min

= = where:

S j, 1 = cumulative survival from stage j until age 1 S j = survival fraction from stage j to stage j + 1 S* j = 2S j e log( 1+ Sj) = adjusted S j j max = the stage immediately prior to age 1 ( Equation 4)

An adjustment to S j, S* j, describes the effective survival rate for the group of organisms entrained at stage j, considering the fact that the individual fish were entrained at various specific ages within stage j. This adjustment is necessary because the amount of time spent in that stage before entrainment occurs is unknown.

The annual total number of age 1 equivalents lost to impingement or entrainment is the sum of age 1 equivalents lost at each life stage during a particular year. The equation used to calculate this total is presented in Section A5 3.1 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), and duplicated below:

where:

AE1 k = the total number of age 1 equivalents derived from losses at all stages in year k ( Equation 6)

Each term in the summation represented by Equation 6 is found using Equation 5 ( presented above). Stratus Consulting 5/ 21/ 02 6 2.2 Example Calculation of Age 1 Equivalent Weakfish Lost to Entrainment Brayton Point Station, 1979 1980 This section uses the equations presented above in Section 2.1 to show how EPA calculated age 1 equivalent numbers of weakfish entrained at the Brayton Point Station in 1979 and 1980.

2.2.1 Example Calculation of Sj and S* j Table 1 illustrates the calculation of S j and S* j, which are used in Equation 4 to calculate S j, 1, the expected cumulative survival rate from the stage of entrainment, j, through age 1. Each row of Table 1 gives the basic and derived parameters that are specific for each particular life stage of weakfish. The two right most columns in the table present S j and S* j. The life history data presented in Table 1 are found in the docket in worksheets 2 to 4 of the EXCEL workbook " brayton. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2037).

Table 1. Stage specific weakfish life history parameters used to derive stage specific weakfish survival rates ( Sj) at Brayton Point Station. Life history parameter Life stage ( j) M F Fraction of life stage ( j) vulnerable to fishery F effective, j a Z = M+ F effective, j S j = e Z S* j b Egg 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00000 1.0430 0.3524 0.5211 Larvae 7.67 0.00 0.00 0.00000 7.6735 0.0005 0.0009 Juv1 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00000 2.4399 0.0872 0.1604 Juv2 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00000 1.4838 0.2268 0.3697 Age01 0.35 0.50 0.10 0.04014 0.3887 0.6779 0.8081 a. F effective, j represents fishing mortality rate ( F) adjusted for fraction of age class vulnerable to fishery b. S* j represents the stage specific survival rate ( S j) adjusted to account for the fact that the precise within stage age of entrained fish is unknown.

2.2.2 Example Calculation of Sj, 1 Table 2 illustrates the calculation of S j, 1, the expected cumulative survival rate from the stage of entrainment, j, through age 1 ( Equation 4 in Section 2.1). The rows of Table 2 give the stage specific values of S j or S* j used in the calculation of S j, 1 for weakfish entrained at Brayton Point. The rows contain different numbers of values for the survival fraction from stage j to stage j+ 1 depending on the number of life stages that an organism would have passed through until reaching age 1. The final column of Table 2 is the stage specific cumulative survival rate from entrainment to age 1, S j, 1 . Stratus Consulting 5/ 21/ 02 7 Table 2. Example derivation of Sj, 1, the stage specific cumulative survival rate ( as a fraction) from stage at entrainment ( j) to Age 1 for weakfish entrained at Brayton Point Station. As noted in the text, the definition of Sj, 1 includes accommodation for unknown within stage age at entrainment. Life Stage ( j) Egg Larvae Juvenile1 Juvenile2 Age1 S j, 1 Egg 0.5211a 0.00046 0.0872 0.2268 0.6779 0.00000479 Larvae 0.00093a 0.0872 0.2268 0.6779 0.0000184 Juvenile1 0.1604a 0.2268 0.6779 0.0364 Juvenile2 0.3697a 0.6779 0.370 Age1 1.190a 1.190 a. S* j, stage at entrainment adjusted survival rate.

2.2.3 Example Calculation of Annual Total Age 1 Equivalents Table 3 shows how stage specific entrainment estimates and stage specific cumulative survival rates are used to calculate stage specific age 1 equivalent losses and the total annual age 1 equivalent losses of weakfish in 1979 and 1980 at Brayton Point. The rows of Table 3 present stage specific values. Column 1 presents Brayton Point's estimates of entrainment losses in 1979 and 1980, column 2 presents these losses adjusted by EPA to represent current conditions, and column 3 presents EPA's estimates of S j, 1. Annual age 1 equivalent losses at Brayton Point are presented in Table F3 7 of Chapter F3 of Part F of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). An explanation of EPA's adjustment of Brayton Point's historical I& E records is also provided in Chapter F3. Stratus Consulting 5/ 21/ 02 8 Table 3. Example application of weakfish cumulative survival rates ( Sj, 1) to derive stage specific and annual total Age 1 equivalent losses from weakfish entrainment losses at Brayton Point Station during 1979 1980.

Year Life stage ( j) Number of fish entrained Flow adjusted lossa S j, 1 Age 1 equivalent losses 1979 Egg 67,093,115 76,620,337 0.00000479 367.0 Larvae 6,336,776.00 7,236,598 0.0000184 133.0 Juvenile1 0 0 0.0364 0.0 Juvenile2 0 0 0.370 0.0 Age1 0 0 1.190 0.0 Total ( 1979) 95,764,620 500 1980 Egg 294,679,948 336,524,501 0.0000048 1,612.1 Larvae 6,897,493.00 7,876,937 0.0000184 144.7 Juv1 0 0 0.0364 0.0 Juv2 0 0 0.3697 0.0 Age01 0 0 1.1900 0.0 Total ( 1980) 393,306,442 1,757 a. Flow adjustment factor = 1.142, accounting for differences in intake flow rate between 1979 1980 and the present; the rationale and derivation of the flow adjustment factor is explained in Chapter F3 of Part F of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 003).


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGIONS III, IV, and V

Technical Support Document

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

For

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; Determination of
Attainment of the 1997 Fine Particulate Standard

January 2011

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Technical Support Document

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………
………………...…........3

CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR FINE PARTICULATE (PM2.5) ATTAINMENT.3

PM2.5 Attainment Requirements
…………………………………………………….………3

Determination of Attainment
……………………………………………………….….....
....4

MONITORING NETWORK
………………………………………….………………..…
……5

LAWRENCE COUNTY HOSPITAL MONITORING SITE
.……………………..…………..6

EPA’S ANALYSIS
……………………………….………………………..……
……………..6

	A.  Analysis of Air Quality
Data……………………………………………..……………
……6

B.  Addressing Missing
Data……………………………………………………..……
………..6

C.  Additional
Analysis………………………………………………………
………..……….14

D.  Air Quality in
2010…………………………………………………………
………...…….14

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………
………………..………….14

APPENDIX A Annual Means for the Huntington-Ashland Area PM2.5 FRM
monitors……...………..16

I.	INTRODUCTION  TC \l1 "I.	INTRODUCTION

	On April 1, 2010, Ohio requested that EPA determine that multiple
areas, including the Huntington-Ashland Area, are attaining the 1997
annual fine particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS).  In addition, pursuant to 179(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
is required to make a determination about the status of this area as of
its attainment date.  This technical support document specifically
addresses the Huntington-Ashland PM2.5 nonattainment area, including
portions in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio (hereafter referred to as
“the Huntington-Ashland Area” or “the Area”).   In this
technical support document, EPA provides information supporting: the
proposed determination that the Huntington-Ashland Area has attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (hereafter referred to as “the annual PM2.5
NAAQS” or “the standard”) and that the area has attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010.

	In this technical support document, EPA:

summarizes the statutory and policy requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment
area SIPs and EPA’s policy concerning attainment.

provides a description of the air quality monitoring network for the
Huntington-Ashland Area PM2.5 nonattainment area

provides a description of the air quality monitoring network for the
Huntington-Ashland Area

describes the Lawrence County Hospital (LCH) monitoring site, and
provides an explanation for monitor shutdown;

describes our detailed analysis of our proposed determination of
attainment, including our analysis of the air quality data, and the
methodology used for substituting for missing data;

describes air quality trends in the Huntington-Ashland Area

summarizes our conclusions on the proposed determination of attainment
with respect to EPA requirements.

II.	CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR FINE PARTICLE (PM 2.5) ATTAINMENT
TC \l1 "II.	DESCRIPTION OF NOx RACT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW JERSEY'S NOx
RACT REGULATION

A.	PM2.5 Attainment Requirements

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In 1997, EPA established the health-based NAAQS
for PM2.5, setting an annual standard at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter
(ug/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations,
and a 24-hour standard of 65 ug/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations.  EPA established the standards
based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating
that serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate
matter.

	On January 5, 2005, (70 FR 944) EPA finalized its air quality
designations and classifications across the country with respect to the
1997 PM2.5 standard.  These designations became effective on April 5,
2005.  The Huntington-Ashland Area was designated nonattainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (See 40 CFR 81.349 (West Virginia), 40 CFR
81.318 (Kentucky), and 40 CFR 81.336 (Ohio).

These designations triggered the Clean Air Act’s requirements under
section 172(c), which requires the submission of an attainment plan for
each designated nonattainment area.  EPA’s PM2.5 implementation rule,
published on April 25, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 20586) specifies that states
must submit attainment plans for their nonattainment areas to the EPA by
no later than three years from the effective date of designation, that
is, by April 5, 2008.  EPA’s PM2.5 implementation rule outlines the
SIP requirements for the attainment plan, which includes among other
things, the submission of an attainment demonstration showing the
air-quality improvements expected to result from national and local
control measures, an analysis of reasonably available control measures
(RACM), including all reasonably available control technology (RACT),
reasonable further progress plan, and contingency measures.  EPA’s
implementation rule also sets the attainment date in these areas as
April 5, 2010, and the determination would be based on data from
2007-2009 (72 FR 20600).

The states of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio, are subject to these
requirements since several counties in the states are located in a PM2.5
nonattainment area.  The Huntington-Ashland Area is composed of some or
all of the following counties in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio:
Cabell, Mason (part) and Wayne Counties in West Virginia; Boyd and
Lawrence (part) Counties in Kentucky; and Adams (part), Gallia (part),
Lawrence, and Scioto Counties in Ohio.

B.	Determination of Attainment

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary and secondary
PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration,
as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less
than or equal to 15.0 ug/m3.

	Data handling conventions and computations necessary for determining
whether areas have met the PM2.5 NAAQS, including requirements for data
completeness, are listed in Appendix N of 40 CFR Part 50.  A year meets
data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter have valid data.  The use of less than
complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may consider
factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence,
and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.

	If this proposed determination of attainment is made final, EPA will
have met its statutory obligation pursuant to section 179(c)(1) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) to make a determination based on the Area’s air
quality data as of the attainment date whether the area attained the
standard by that date.  Additionally, as a result of such determination,
the requirements for Kentucky, Ohio or West Virginia to submit an
attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency
measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS within the Huntington-Ashland Area would be suspended
until such time as: a) the area is redesignated to attainment, at which
time the requirements would no longer apply; or, b) EPA determines that
the area has violated the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, at which time, the area
would be required to submit such plans.  See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).

	A determination of attainment does not shield an area from other
required actions such as New Source Review (NSR), conformity and
emission inventory requirements, and provisions to address pollution
transport, which would require emission reductions at sources or other
types of emission activities contributing significantly to nonattainment
in other areas or states, or interfering with maintenance in those
areas.

Determinations as to whether individual areas have attained the PM2.5
standards and thus qualify for the application of a determination of
attainment are being made in the context of rulemakings for individual
areas.  This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides an explanation of
EPA’s analysis used to determine whether the Huntington-Ashland Area
has attained the annual PM2.5 standard by the applicable attainment
date.

MONITORING NETWORK

The Huntington-Ashland Area currently has three air monitoring
locations; one each in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio.  West Virginia
also has a collocated monitor in place at the site for quality assurance
purposes.  The primary monitor, and not the collocated monitor, is used
to determine compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Since the collocated
quality assurance monitor takes many fewer readings than the primary
monitor, its average annual values may be unrepresentatively high even
if only a few high values are recorded. (See 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N,
3(d)(1).  Two monitoring locations for Ohio are listed in Table 1 due to
the LCH monitor shut-down and Ironton DOT start-up during the 2007-2009
time period.  Table 1 shows the monitor design values (DVs) (i.e., the
3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) for the years
2007-2009.  The area DV is the highest annual mean measured for a
federal reference method (FRM) monitor that had complete data in a
county.

Table 1.— 2007-2009 Design Values for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for
the Huntington-Ashland Area Monitors in Micrograms per Cubic Meter
(ug/m3).

Site Name	County	Site Number	Annual Average Concentration (μg/m3)

Huntington	Cabell	54-011-0006	14.3

Ashland Primary (FIVCO)	Boyd	21-019-0017	12.4

Lawrence County Hospital	Lawrence	39-087-0010	13.3

Ironton DOT	Lawrence	39-087-0012	12.2

EPA meets annually with each state to discuss any problems or issues
concerning states’ air monitoring data and/or network.  In addition,
EPA and the states communicate many times during the year so that issues
can be addressed as they show up.  EPA regulations require states to
submit annual network plans to their respective Regions.  These plans
outline the current networks and any proposed changes in the upcoming 18
months.  Regions 3, 4, and 5 have been able to approve these plans due
to the quality of the West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio monitoring
networks.

LAWRENCE COUNTY HOSPITAL MONITORING SITE

The LCH monitor operated until February 11, 2008, when monitoring was
discontinued permanently at the site due to the building demolition.
Because the monitor at this location could not be replaced, a new site
in this county was established at the Ironton DOT starting when
monitoring at the LCH ended.  As a result, the Ironton DOT monitor did
not obtain any data for 2007 and did not obtain complete data for the
first quarter of 2008.  Nevertheless, the available data for the
remainder of 2008 and all of 2009 indicate attainment at this monitor.

	As discussed in greater detail below, the monitors in Lawrence County
were the only monitors in the Huntington-Ashland Area without valid
attaining DVs for 2007-2009 due to incomplete data.    This monitor
historically measured lower concentrations than other monitors in the
Area, including, for example, the monitor in Cabell County, West
Virginia.

EPA’S ANALYSIS

Analysis of Air Quality Data

	EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent
with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the
EPA Air Quality System database for the Huntington-Ashland Area from
2007 through the present time.  Currently all monitors are measuring
concentrations averaging well below the annual standard of 15.0 ug/m3.
The highest DV for the most recent 3 years, 2007-2009, for the
Huntington-Ashland Area is 14.3 ug/m3, based on monitoring data
collected in West Virginia at the Huntington monitor.  All 3-year
averages of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations are below the NAAQS
from 2007-2009.

	In order to determine whether the NAAQS has been attained for the LCH
monitor, EPA has applied a recently developed procedure to address the
missing data, and determine valid DVs for the monitor for the annual
standard for 2007-2009.  EPA’s procedure is described in the following
section.

Addressing Missing Data

Additional analysis was necessary for the LCH monitor (site number
39-087-0010) because this monitor is no longer operating (due to
building demolition) but recorded a violation in the most recent three
year period in which it collected complete data.  An objective
statistical method was used to determine if this monitor would likely
have met the NAAQS in subsequent time periods.

The general concept behind the statistical method is to establish a
linear regression relationship between the monitor of interest and
another “comparison monitor” in the nonattainment area based on data
obtained when the monitor of interest was still operating.  The method
then estimates concentrations at the monitor of interest for the period
after monitor shutdown by applying a linear regression to the more
recently observed concentrations at the other monitor.  The results are
checked with an additional statistical technique, known as
bootstrapping, to verify if the conclusion of attainment is correct.

The monitor of interest in this analysis is the LCH monitor.  This site
ceased monitoring in February 2008 and had an incomplete DV of 12.9
µg/m3 for 2007-2008.  The goal of this methodology is to appropriately
fill in the missing data from the quarters 1-4 of 2008, and quarters 1-4
of 2009 to judge whether this location would likely have monitored
attainment of the NAAQS had the monitor continued to operate.  The
Huntington-Ashland Area has two monitoring locations with complete data
for 2007-2009, listed in Table 1 above, both of which are similar enough
to warrant comparison to the LCH monitor.

Criteria to be met

EPA established criteria to assure that the DV for the LCH monitor in
the Huntington-Ashland Area, as estimated by the method, was robust
enough to allow consideration of the results in a weight of evidence
decision.  EPA established criteria both for the operating period of the
comparison monitor and for the number of days of samples that the
comparison monitor and the LCH monitor have in common.  EPA has not
established bright lines or specific requirements for determining DVs
for monitors with less than complete data.

Operating period

In order to provide satisfactory concentration estimates for the LCH
monitor for the period after the monitor shut down, comparison monitors
in the Huntington-Ashland Area would need to have operated from well
before from February 2008 to the end of 2009.  Operation for a
substantial period before February 2008 is necessary to support a robust
regression relationship with concentrations at the LCH monitor, and
operation from February 2008 to the end of 2009 is necessary to support
concentration estimates for this period.

Paired samples

Pairs of sample data for the LCH monitor and comparison monitors from
the most recent 20-quarter period of operation of the LCH monitor were
used.  Comparison monitors were required to have at least 100 historical
sample pairs in common with the target monitor during this period.  When
there were more than 100 pairs in the 20-quarter period, all available
pairs were used.  In addition to the 100 pairs over the 20-quarters,
comparison monitors were required to have at least 20 paired days of
data in common with the LCH monitor for each quarter (adding together
the number of days in a given calendar quarter [Q1, Q2, Q3, or Q4]
across the various years in the 20-quarter period).

Both comparison monitors, Ashland Primary and Huntington, met the
eligibility criteria of 100 pairs over the 20-quarters, and at least 20
paired days of data in common with the LCH monitor for each calendar
quarter.

Method for determining DVs

Step 1 – Organize data and perform linear regression(s) between the
LCH monitor and the comparison monitors.

For both the Ashland Primary and the Huntington monitors, all the
available paired data within the 5-year period described above were used
to develop a linear regression expressing concentrations at the LCH
monitor in relation to concentrations at the comparison monitor.

Step 2 – Select candidate monitor

The Huntington-Ashland Area has 2 monitors which could have been used as
comparison monitors, Ashland Primary and the Huntington.  The following
steps were used to select the comparison monitor.

1) Comparison monitors were placed into order of highest correlation
(highest r-squared in the linear regression) of concentrations with
concentrations at the LCH monitor.  The comparison monitor showing the
highest correlation of concentrations with concentrations at the LCH
monitor was used first.

2) Using the regression equation relating concentrations at the LCH
monitor and the comparison monitor, estimates of the 24-hour average
concentrations at the LCH monitor were made for each day after this
monitor was shut down that the monitor otherwise would have been
scheduled to measure concentrations, except that no estimate was made if
the comparison monitor had no valid measurement.  The estimates were
combined with any reported data at the LCH monitor in the recent 3-year
period and the data capture rates were computed for each originally
incomplete quarter.

3) If performing the process in #2 results in all 12 quarters at the LCH
monitor having at least 75 percent of scheduled values, the comparison
monitor was selected for use in the remaining steps. If 75 percent of
the scheduled values for the LCH monitor were not obtained, the steps in
#2 were repeated for the next best correlated comparison monitor.  This
process was repeated until the LCH monitor had at least 75 percent of
the number of values expected under its original operating schedule.

Step 3 – DV Computed

The 3-year DV was calculated using the actual observations at the LCH
monitor and the regression-based estimates of daily concentrations.  The
resulting DV for the LCH monitor was 13.3 µg/m3, which is below the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Step 4 –Statistical confidence of a DV below the NAAQS checked

In order to show that there is a minimal probability that the actual DV
(had the LCH monitor operated more days) was above the annual PM2.5
NAAQS, further analysis was performed as follows:

(a) 	Residuals were calculated from the regression.

(b) 	A bootstrap analysis was performed, repeating the regression-based
substitution in Step 2 but adding to each estimated 24-hour value that
substitutes for a missing scheduled monitored value a plus or minus
residual that has been randomly drawn (with replacement) from the pool
of regression residuals.  This step randomly applies real residuals from
the linear regression to the imputed current-period target values.

(c)  	Repeat (b) for a total of 1000 runs.

(d)  	For each of the 1000 bootstrap trials, the 3-year DV was
calculated.  This provides a pseudo confidence interval for the
partially imputed current-period DV for the target.

(e) 	Since none of the 1000 runs resulted in a DV above the annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the LCH monitor was considered to have met the annual PM2.5
NAAQS.

Determining the DV for Lawrence County Hospital (AQS ID: 39-087-0010)

The analysis described above was performed to estimate concentrations at
the LCH monitor.  The results of the regressions can be found in Table
2.  The LCH monitor is identified in this table as Site A.  The
comparison monitors in this table are all identified in this table as
Site B.  The Ashland Primary monitor (AQS ID: 21-019-0017) had the
highest correlation with the LCH monitor and met the operating period
and paired data eligibility criteria for being the comparison monitor.
The results of the regression between the LCH monitor and the Ashland
Primary monitor are shown in Figure 1.  Estimates for the missing data
for quarters 1 thru 4 of 2008 and for quarters 1 thru 4 of 2009 for the
LCH monitor were made.  These quarters were the quarters with less than
75 percent data capture.  As a result of filling in the missing data,
the LCH monitor now had 32, 30, 31, 30 values for quarters 1 thru 4 for
2008, respectively, and 30, 30, 27, 31 values for quarters 1 thru 4 of
2009, respectively.  A DV of 13.3 (g/m3 was calculated for the LCH
monitor when the missing data was filled in, as shown in Figure 2.

The statistical confidence of the DV was checked using the method
outlined in Step 4 above.  The results of the 1000 bootstrap trials
provided the following results:  243 DVs) of 13.2 µg/m3, 223 DVs of
13.3 µg/m3, 177 DVs of 13.1 µg/m3, 157 DVs of 13.4 µg/m3, 81 DVs of
13.0 µg/m3, 61 DVs of 13.5 µg/m3, 21 DVs of 13.6 µg/m3, 19 DVs of
12.9 µg/m3, 8 DVs of 13.7 µg/m3, 6 DVs of 12.8 µg/m3, 2 DVs of 12.7
µg/m3, and 2 DVs of 13.8 µg/m3.  None of the 1000 bootstrapping trials
resulted in a violating DV, which provides statistical confidence that
the air quality at the LCH monitor is below the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

 C. 	Additional Analysis

	Additional statistical analysis was performed for the LCH monitor using
a different comparison monitor.  EPA re-ran the analysis using data from
the Huntington monitor (site number 54-011-0006), a monitor that is
similarly correlated with the LCH monitor as the Ashland Primary
monitor.  The results of the analysis using the Huntington monitor as
the comparison monitor produced an estimated 2007-2009 DV at the LCH of
13.1 µg/m3, which is also below the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3.  That is, the
concentration estimates provided by the method described herein indicate
a DV at LCH that is below the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, regardless of which
area monitor is used as the basis for the estimates.

D.         Air Quality in 2010

	The states have submitted monitoring data for 2010.  EPA examined 2008
to 2010 data as an indication of whether the area continues to attain
the standard.  Table 3 shows the average concentration at each of the
sites in the Huntington-Ashland Area.  All sites have average
concentrations well below the standard, with average values ranging from
12.2 to 13.1 µg/m3.  Therefore, EPA believes that 2008 to 2010 data,
interpreted in conjunction with data from 2007 to 2009, supports a
determination that the Huntington-Ashland Area is attaining the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

Table 3.— 20008- 2010 annual average PM2.5 concentrations for the
Huntington-Ashland Area monitors in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3).

Site Name	County	Site Number	Annual Average Concentration (μg/m3)

Huntington	Cabell	54-011-0006	13.1

Ashland Primary (FIVCO)	Boyd	21-019-0017	11.4

Ironton DOT	Lawrence	39-087-0012	12.2

CONCLUSION

	EPA is proposing to determine that the Huntington-Ashland Area has
attained the annual 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by its attainment date of April 5,
2010.

	EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent
with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the
EPA Air Quality System database for the Huntington-Ashland Area.  The
3-year averages of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations continue to be
below the NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m3.

	EPA has concluded that use of less than complete data from the LCH
monitoring site is warranted for determining attainment of the NAAQS.
The States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio have been diligent in
the number and placement of PM2.5 monitors in the nonattainment area.
The monitor at LCH was shut down due to a planned building demolition
and could not be replaced.  In light of such facts, EPA employed a
procedure using a statistical method to estimate concentrations at the
LCH monitor for the remainder of the time period at issue; and, the
resulting analysis supports a finding of attainment of the annual PM2.5
NAAQS at this location.

	As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this determination,
it would suspend the requirements for this area to submit attainment
demonstrations, reasonably available control measures, reasonable
further progress plans, and contingency measures related to attainment
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS so long as the Area continues to attain
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Appendix A

Annual Means for the Huntington-Ashland Area PM2.5 FRM monitors

 West Virginia has a collocated monitor in place at the same site for
quality assurance purposes.  The primary monitor, and not the collocated
monitor, is used to determine compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Since
the collocated monitor takes fewer readings than the primary monitor,
its average annual values may be unrepresentatively high. See 40 CFR
Part 50, Appendix N, 3(d)(1).

 Data from the Lawrence County Hospital and Ironton DOT sites were
incomplete due to shut-down of the Lawrence County Hospital site and
startup of the Ironton DOT site in February 2008.

 The Lawrence County Hospital Site was shut-down in February 2008.  The
Ironton DOT site began operation in 2008 after the Lawrence County
Hospital Site ceased monitoring.

 West Virginia has a collocated monitor in place at the same site for
quality assurance purposes.  The primary monitor, and not the collocated
monitor, is used to determine compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Since
the collocated monitor takes fewer readings than the primary monitor,
its average annual values may be unrepresentatively high. See 40 CFR
Part 50, Appendix N, 3(d)(1).

 PAGE   14

 PAGE   15

഍഍഍䘍杩牵⸲†敒畳瑬⁳潦⁲慌牷湥散䌠畯瑮⁹潈
灳瑩污猠瑩晡整⁲楦汬湩湩洠獩楳杮搠瑡潦⁲污
畱牡整獲漠〲㠰湡污畱牡整獲漠〲㤰഍

$

;

K

N

U

V

s

†

‰

‘

©

À

Ã

Ç

È

É

Ê

ø

þ

葠﯈摧ぇK

:

Q

R

S

U

Z

]

̀Ĥ␆ሁā愀Ĥ摧␢ê

฀㟽$␸䠀$葝摧朤i

hY#

hY#

฀ᇽ킄㄂$葝葠ː摧⍙

 hP

萑ː葠ː摧ᡒ

㄀$摧ᇡÆ

摧⓸6

hô

hô

hô

Figure 1 Concentrations at Lawrence County Hospital (site 390870010,
labeled “v_a”) compared to concentrations at Ashland (site
210190017, labeled “v_b”).

The linear relationship between the two monitors is: Concentration at
Lawrence County Hospital = 2.293135 + 0.882184 * concentration at
Ashland.  The correlation coefficient was 0.86384.

Table 2. Correlation and data capture for monitors used to determine a
DV for Lawrence County Hospital site.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27543-27546]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11092]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0228; FRL-9910-96-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho Franklin
County Portion of the Logan Nonattainment Area; Fine Particulate Matter
Emissions Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted
a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), dated

December 14, 2012, to address Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)
requirements for the Idaho portion (hereafter referred to as ``Franklin
County'') of the cross border Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment area for
the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards. The EPA is proposing to approve the
baseline emissions inventory contained in IDEQ's submittal as meeting
the requirement to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions in Franklin County.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2014-0228, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2014-0228. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information,
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
    C. Submittal Requirements for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
II. Analysis of the State's Submittal
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

    Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA establishes national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for certain pervasive
air pollutants (referred to as ``criteria pollutants'') and conducts
periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be
revised or whether new NAAQS should be established.
    On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter
to add new standards for fine particles, using PM2.5
(particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter) as the
indicator for the pollutant. The EPA established primary and secondary
\1\ annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652).
The annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and the 24-hour standard was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor
within an area. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the
level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on
a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' national ambient air
quality standards are those determined by the EPA as requisite to
protect the public health, and ``secondary'' standards are those
determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare
from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the
presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section
109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    Effective December 14, 2009, the EPA established the initial air
quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). Among
the various areas designated in 2009, the EPA designated the cross
border Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment area as nonattainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The boundaries for these areas are
described in 40 CFR 81.313.

C. Submittal Requirements for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state with an area
designated as nonattainment to submit for EPA approval a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions for the
nonattainment area. The EPA's requirements for an emissions inventory
for the PM2.5 NAAQS are set forth in 40 CFR 51.1008,
promulgated as part of the EPA's Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation
Rule published April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586) (hereafter referred to as
the ``PM2.5 implementation rule''). Although the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) recently
remanded the PM2.5 implementation rule and directed the EPA
to re-promulgate it pursuant to subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA
(see Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.
2013)), the court's ruling in this case does not affect the EPA's
action on the emissions inventory. Subpart 4 of part D, title I of the
Act contains no specific provision governing emissions inventories for

PM10 or PM2.5 nonattainment areas that supersedes
the general emissions inventory requirement for all nonattainment areas
in CAA section 172(c)(3). See ``State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' (57 FR 13498, 13539, April 16, 1992). This
proposed approval is limited to the emissions inventory for direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors submitted by IDEQ for
the Franklin County portion of the Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment area
as required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions for
each nonattainment area. The EPA's requirements for an emissions
inventory for the PM2.5 NAAQS are set forth in 40 CFR
51.1008. For the PM2.5 NAAQS, the pollutants to be
inventoried are PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (i.e.,
nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2)).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005,
updated November 2005. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Franklin County emissions inventory provides a 2008 inventory
in tons per day (tpd) winter-time episode estimates for
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Monitoring data for
Franklin County, and the overall Logan nonattainment area, indicates
that high PM2.5 concentrations occur during the winter
months when meteorological conditions trap pollutants in the valley.
Therefore, the Franklin County emissions estimates reflect the winter
stagnation episodes when secondary PM2.5 formation
dominates. The source categories include stationary sources, area
sources, on-road mobile sources and off-road mobile sources. A summary
of the Franklin County emissions inventory is provided in Table 1
below, and the detailed Franklin County emissions inventory is found in
Appendices B and C of IDEQ's submittal.

                Table 1--Franklin County 2008 Winter Emissions Inventory in Tons per Episode Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category               PM2.5            NOX             SO2             VOC             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, crops, and                    0.008           0               0               2.763           4.65
 livestock......................
Gasoline, bulk, and stations....           0               0               0               0               0
Commercial cooking..............           0               0               0               0               0
Construction dust...............           0.014           0               0               0               0
Fuel combustion, industrial.....           0.006           0.087           0.061           0.001           0.002
Fuel combustion, commercial/               0.004           0.07            0.018           0.001           0
 institutional..................
Fuel combustion, residential non-          0.001           0.049           0.014           0.002           0.008
 wood...........................
Fuel combustion, residential               0.1             0.009           0.002           0.138           0
 wood...........................
Miscellaneous Commercial/                  0.001           0.001           0               0               0.008
 Industrial Processes...........
Solvent, commercial and consumer           0               0               0               0.14            0
Solvent, commercial and                    0               0               0               0.26            0
 industrial.....................
Waste disposal..................           0               0               0               0.008           0
Mobile, emissions...............           0.028           0.711           0.004           0.498           0.008
Mobile, road dust...............           0.596           0               0               0               0
Nonroad mobile..................           0.035           0.428           0.009           0.636           0
Point sources...................           0               0               0               0               0
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................           0.793           1.355           0.108           4.447           4.676
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Franklin County emissions inventory includes emissions
estimates from stationary sources, area sources, on-road mobile
sources, and off-road mobile sources. The methodologies used to derive
the 2008 inventory for PM2.5 are as follows:
     The stationary source emissions inventory is based on 2008
data of actual emissions reported by all permitted facilities. In
Franklin County there are no industrial point sources of this type.
     Area-wide source emissions were calculated based on
reported data for fuel usage, product sales, population, employment
data, and other parameters covering a wide range of activities, in
conjunction with the 2008 triennial National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
     IDEQ calculated residential wood stove base year and
subsequent emission reductions using the EPA's Woodstove Calculator and
tax receipt information from certified woodstove change out incentive
programs.
     The on-road emissions inventory, which consists of mobile
sources such as trucks, automobiles, buses, and motorcycles, was
prepared by IDEQ using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES2010a).
     The non-road mobile source category includes aircraft,
trains and boats, and off-road vehicles and equipment used for
construction, farming, commercial, industrial, and recreational
activities. Non-road emissions were estimated by IDEQ and Utah
Department of Air Quality using the EPA's NONROAD2008a model as
described in Appendix B of the SIP submittal.
     Paved road emissions were estimated by IDEQ, based on the
EPA's January 2011 version of AP-42, Section 13.2.1.
    The EPA has reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for
the Franklin County emissions inventory. IDEQ used standard procedures
to develop its emissions inventory and appropriately used seasonal
emissions inventories to represent episodic meteorological conditions
when PM2.5 levels are of the greatest concern. After
reviewing the IDEQ submittal of the Franklin County emissions inventory
and supporting documentation, the EPA is proposing to find that the
emissions inventory meets the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's
guidance.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing approval of the PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions inventory submitted by IDEQ, dated
December 14, 2012, for the Franklin

County, Idaho portion of the cross border Logan, Utah-Idaho
nonattainment area. The EPA has determined that this action is
consistent with sections 110 and 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 28, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Adminstrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-11092 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 75431-75432]
[DOCID:fr11de08-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-185-000]

Weyerhaeuser NE Company; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

November 18, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Weyerhaeuser NE Company's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 18, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail

notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-29342 Filed 12-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 85624]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3380-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of North Carolina (FEMA-3380-EM), dated October 7, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective October 24, 2016.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-28541 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81691-81692]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32613]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63589; File No. SR-EDGX-2010-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend
EDGX Rule 11.5

December 21, 2010.
    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 December 13, 2010, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    EDGX proposes to amend EDGX Rule 11.5(a)(2) to provide that the
system functionality that cancels any portion of a market order
submitted to the Exchange that would execute at a price that is more
than $0.50 or 5 percent worse than last sale at the time the order
initially reaches the Exchange, whichever is greater, does not apply to
Destination-on-Open orders, as defined in Rule 11.5(c)(10). The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web
site at http://www.directedge.com, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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
    As provided in SR-EDGX-2010-14,\3\ Exchange Rule 11.5(a)(2)
protects market participants from executions at prices that are
significantly worse than the last sale at the time of order entry by
providing Exchange system functionality that cancels any portion of a
market order (as defined in Rule 11.5(a)(2)) that would execute at a
price that is 50 cents or 5 percentage points worse than the
consolidated last sale, whichever is greater. Any portion of a market
order that would otherwise execute outside of these thresholds is
immediately cancelled back to the User.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63163 (October 22,
2010), 75 FR 66408 (October 28, 2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-14).
    \4\ A User is defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(cc) as ``any Member
or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to Rule 11.3''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 11.5(a)(2) to provide that
Destination-on-Open orders, as defined in Rule 11.5(c)(10),\5\ are not
subject to these market collars.\6\ The rationale for this exception is
twofold. First, using a reference price calculation for market collar
thresholds at the open of trading is problematic because of the
potential lack of trading activity just prior to the open and the
resulting price dislocation. Therefore, the reference price for a
market collar on a Destination-on-Open order could be out of line with
the market at the open of the regular trading session. In addition,
other Exchanges also address this issue similarly by excluding market
on open orders as well.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 11.5(c)(10) defines a Destination-on-Open order, in
part, as ``a market or limit order that instructs the System to
route the order to a specified away trading center to participate in
said trading center's opening process, without being processed by
the System as described below in Rule 11.9(b)(1).''
    \6\ The Exchange notes that when orders are routed to an away
trading center, such away trading centers' collar rules apply, when
applicable, regardless of the Exchange's proposed exclusion for
Destination-on-Open orders.
    \7\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(13) which excludes market on
open orders from the definition of ``collared orders.'' See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60371 (July 23, 2009), 74 FR
38075 (July 30, 2009) (SR-Nasdaq-2009-070).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\8\ which requires the rules of an exchange 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, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that excluding Destination-on-Open orders from the
application of market collars is appropriate in order to avoid the
potential dislocation between the reference price for a market collar
on a Destination-on-Open order and the market at the open of the
regular trading session. Accordingly, the modifications to Exchange
Rule 11.5 promote just and

equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange will issue an information circular to all Members
prior to implementation, which will be on or about December 14, 2010.

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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 Regarding the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ which would make the proposed rule change effective
and operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest.\14\ The Commission notes that the proposal is
based on the rules of another SRO that similarly excludes market on
open orders from its market collar functionality.\15\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \15\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2010-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2010-24. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
EDGX-2010-24 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32613 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P