Applying for Another Award? You may include your promotion or consumer outreach campaign within the application for that award rather than submitting two applications.
 While it is unlikely that two awards will be issued to the same organization, the award committee will evaluate your application for both awards assuming you have clearly and fully addressed the award criteria for both.
 Retailers, manufacturers, and/or energy efficiency program sponsors that work together on a promotion/campaign are encouraged to apply as a group.

Applying for Another Award? You may include your promotion or consumer outreach campaign within the application for that award rather than submitting two applications.
 While it is unlikely that two awards will be issued to the same organization, the award committee will evaluate your application for both awards assuming you have clearly and fully addressed the award criteria for both.
 Retailers, manufacturers, and/or energy efficiency program sponsors that work together on a promotion/campaign are encouraged to apply as a group.

Eligibility:

        All ENERGY STAR Product, Commercial and Industrial, Homes, and Residential partners, including retailers, manufacturers, energy efficiency program sponsors, or other organizations, that planned and executed a successful ENERGY STAR promotion or other consumer outreach initiative. Please remember to review and complete PART 1: General Instructions & Executive Summary.

Description:

        This award recognizes specific, exemplary ENERGY STAR promotions or other consumer outreach initiatives (as opposed to ongoing efficiency programs) that took place during calendar year 2019. Applications should highlight specific activities your organization undertook to promote ENERGY STAR certified products, buildings/plants, homes or other ENERGY STAR education.  These could include participation in one or more of EPA's ENERGY STAR 2019 outreach activities, such as the ENERGY STAR annual product promotions or Battle of the Buildings, as well as other consumer outreach initiatives / campaigns initiated by the partner.

                        BEGIN APPLICATION

                      PART 2:
Award Accomplishments Document
                 (use the following information to create a Word or PDF file)

Accomplishments Narrative:

        Your narrative description should be no more than three pages, but may be accompanied by electronic samples of your promotional materials. These supporting materials will not count toward the page limit.

            Accomplishments -- Organizations applying for this award should provide a detailed description of 2019 accomplishments demonstrating how you have met the following required criteria.

            Cumulative Accomplishments -- When highlighting cumulative accomplishments, please ensure that you include a timeframe (e.g., "saved $3 million in 2019 and more than $10 million since 2001").

Please include a detailed description of your product marketing and communications efforts and accomplishments in 2019.

For Product and Residential partners, these could include participation in one or more of EPA's ENERGY STAR 2019 relevant product promotions or other consumer outreach initiatives / campaigns listed below:

       Flip Your Fridge
       Earth Day
       Pool Pumps
       Cooling / heating
       Room Air Conditioners
       Laundry
       ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
       Water Heaters
       Light the Moment / lighting
       Smart Thermostats
       Rule Your Attic
       ENERGY STAR Day
       Holiday
       ENERGY STAR Pledge

It could also include your own consumer outreach initiative that promoted ENERGY STAR certified products not included in the list, such as commercial food service or data centers.

For Commercial and Industrial partners, promotions could include the following:

 Hosting an ENERGY STAR Battle of the Buildings competition
 Promoting ENERGY STAR Treasure Hunts
 Running campaigns that foster benchmarking in ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, encourage the adoption of energy-efficiency best practices, or engage building occupants in energy-efficient behaviors.

For Homes partners, any promotions of ENERGY STAR homes or apartments and/or sales staff training to promote the features and benefits of ENERGY STAR certified homes will be considered.
Partners can also include their own initiatives to promote ENERGY STAR.
For each effort, provide the following:

 Description of the effort and specific tactics used, such as Web / online / digital media, in-store activities (signage / events), advertising, public relations, social media, direct mail, etc.

 Intended audience for the marketing/communications effort, such as demographics, etc.

 Dates and location of activity(ies)

 Data on the impact of the effort, such as:
 Quantity of materials/efforts
 Frequency of efforts
 Reach/Impressions
 Web data - such as number of views, unique visitors, or average view times

 Brief description of any partnering or cooperative aspects

 Other qualitative or quantitative consumer/community feedback, including measures demonstrating behavioral change.

 Graphic examples of materials to demonstrate the integration of ENERGY STAR graphics and messaging. Please provide all graphic examples in a single PDF and organize the examples so they can be easily referenced in the application narrative.

To be considered, graphics examples representing the promotion described in the narrative must be included in the application. These files should be uploaded under the PART 3: Supporting Materials section of this application process. (minimum of 1 required) Each example must also include the correct use of the ENERGY STAR brand (and marks) and association with energy efficiency and environmental protection. (Examples that do not include ENERGY STAR will not be considered.) Also, materials must include links to www.energystar.gov  through reference in materials or links from promotional landing pages.

      Special consideration will be given to partners that integrate the Ways to Save Tips
      web service into their websites for general ENERGY STAR education purposes.
      See the Ways to Save Tips web service one-pager for more information.

                 Prepare/Gather Remaining Documents for Upload

PART 3: Supporting Materials (at least one required, as described in the Application Instructions above)
PART 4: Organization's High-Resolution Logo (required)

ENERGY STAR[(R)] is the simple choice for energy efficiency. For 25 years, EPA's ENERGY STAR program has been America's resource for saving energy and protecting the environment. Join the millions already making a difference at energystar.gov.


Mr. Joe J. Mayhew Vice President, Regulatory and Technical Affairs American Chemistry Council 1300 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22209 Dear Mr. Mayhew:

Thank you for your August 12 letter to Assistant Administrator Jeff Holmstead, in which you expressed concern over Agency policies for periodic and sufficiency monitoring required under the part 70 operating permits regulations. Your letter was forwarded to me for a reply. I appreciate your comments, which raise important policy and legal issues.

I recognize the impact that monitoring requirements can have on companies in the chemical industry, and I appreciate your continuing recommendations about how requirements may be implemented to be effective while minimizing burdens on the regulated community. You also outline several legal issues in response to briefs we filed on litigation related to these issues. While I can not at this time respond to the legal points you raise, I am following this litigation with interest. I want to emphasize that regardless of outcome of the litigation, we are committed to working with the regulated community to effectively address your concerns about Title V.

Also, in your letter, you raised concerns that the Agency is trying to revise its operating permits rules in an unlawful manner; rest assured that any future action we undertake on these requirements will conform with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Clean Air Act. I encourage you to submit written comments on any rules we might propose relating to these requirements, and I will fully consider your comments in that context.

Again, thank you for your letter. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust the information provided is helpful.

Sincerely,

Steve Page, Director Office of Air Qaulity and Planning and Standards Enclosure


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29416-29419]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11913]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66965; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2012-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1), the Exchange's ``Other Securities'' Listing
Standard, To Delete a Provision Providing That If a Security Listed
Under the Rule Contains Redemption Provisions, the Redemption Price
Must Be at Least $3.00 Per Unit

May 11, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on April 30, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1),
the Exchange's ``Other Securities'' listing standard, to delete a
provision providing that if a security listed under the rule contains
redemption provisions the redemption price must be at least $3.00 per
unit. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and www.nyse.com.

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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1),
the Exchange's initial listing standard for ``Other Securities,'' \3\
as set forth below. Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1), the
Exchange may approve for listing and trading securities which cannot be
readily categorized under the listing criteria for common and preferred
stocks, bonds, debentures, warrants, contingent value rights, and unit
investment trusts.\4\ The Exchange, like certain other national
securities exchanges, refers to such securities as ``Other
Securities.'' \5\ In addition, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4)
(``Index-linked Exchangeable Notes'') and NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6) (``Equity Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked
Securities, Currency-Linked Securities, Fixed Income Index-Linked
Securities, Futures-Linked Securities and Multifactor Index-Linked
Securities'') (securities listed under any of these rules and
securities listed under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1) shall be
referred to herein as ``hybrid securities'') require that, in the case
of securities listed under those rules, both the issue and the issuer
must comply with the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1),
except to the extent that those rules explicitly provide otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34429 (July 22,
1994), 59 FR 38998 (August 1, 1994) (SR-PSE-93-12) (approving, among
other things, the initial listing standards for ``Other Securities''
of the Pacific Stock Exchange (``PCX''), the predecessor entity to
NYSE Arca).
    \4\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1) currently states that the
Exchange will consider listing any security not otherwise covered by
the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(c) through (h). See
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1); see, e.g., NYSE Arca Equities
Rules 5.2(c) (listing criteria for common stock); 5.2(d) (listing
criteria for preferred stock and similar issues and secondary
classes of common stock; 5.2(e) (listing criteria for bonds and
debentures); 5.2(f) (listing criteria for warrants); 5.2(g) (listing
criteria for contingent value rights); and 5.2(h) (listing criteria
for unit investment trusts).
    \5\ NYSE Amex's initial listing standards for ``Other
Securities'' are set forth in Section 107A of the NYSE Amex Company
Guide. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27753 (March 1,
1990), 55 FR 8626 (March 8, 1990) (SR-Amex-89-29) (approving the
initial listing criteria for ``Other Securities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange amended its initial and continued listing standards
for operating companies on a pilot program basis in 2006 (the ``Pilot
Program'') and subsequently extended that Pilot Program three times.\6\
The Pilot Program also made minor changes to a number of other rules,
including NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1), which was amended to (i)
add a pre-tax income initial listing requirement of $1,000,000 and (ii)
to make some minor non-substantive stylistic changes. The Exchange
amended rules included in the Pilot Program on several occasions while
the Pilot Program was operational, including by means of a rule filing
approved by the SEC in which the Exchange deleted NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(1)(E), which provided that the redemption price must be at
least $3.00 per unit for those issues that contain redemption
provisions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission initially approved the Pilot Program for six
months, until May 29, 2007. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54796 (November 20, 2006), 71 FR 69166 (November 29, 2006) (SR-
NYSEArca-2006-85). The Pilot was subsequently extended for an
additional six months, until November 30, 2007. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55838 (May 31, 2007), 72 FR 31642 (June 7,
2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-51). The Pilot was then extended for an
additional six months, until May 31, 2008. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 56885 (December 3, 2007), 72 FR 69272 (December 7,
2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-123). The Pilot was finally extended for an
additional six months, until November 30, 2008. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 57922 (June 4, 2008), 73 FR 33137 (June 11,
2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-55).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56906 (December 5,
2007), 72 FR 70636 (December 12, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third and final extension of the Pilot Program expired on
November 30, 2008. After the final extension of the Pilot Program in
2008, NYSE Euronext, the ultimate parent company of NYSE Arca decided
to discontinue initial listing of equity securities of operating
companies on NYSE Arca. The listing standards adopted under the Pilot
Program, as amended, were not adopted on a permanent basis prior to the
expiration of the Pilot Program because of that decision.
    The Exchange now proposes to amend its rules to delete NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1)(E), which provides that the redemption price
must be at least $3.00 per unit for those issues that contain
redemption provisions. The Exchange proposes to delete this provision
in order to bring the NYSE Arca Equities rule in line with those of
other exchanges and, therefore, to remain competitive in the
marketplace.\8\ The Exchange notes that, while it does not at this time
list any securities under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1), NYSE Arca
Rule 5.2(j)(4) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) both incorporate
certain requirements from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1), including
those the Exchange proposes to delete pursuant to this filing. As the
Exchange continues to regularly list securities under NYSE Arca
Equities 5.2(j)(6), the proposed amendment has significant implications
for the Exchange's competitive position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37165 (May 3, 1996),
61 FR 21215 (May 9, 1996) (SR-Amex-96-15) (eliminating the U.S.
dollar cash settlement and minimum redemption price requirements for
``Hybrid Securities'' in Section 107A of the NYSE Amex Company
Guide).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Exchange first adopted its ``Other Securities'' listing
standard in 1994, it adopted a standard that was the same in all
material respects as the standard adopted by the American Stock
Exchange (``Amex'') (predecessor to NYSE Amex) in 1990. At the time
that the Amex adopted its ``Other Securities'' standard, the market for
exchange-traded hybrid securities was in its infancy. The Exchange
understands that there was a concern that investors did not have a
sophisticated enough understanding of how hybrid securities performed
and it was believed that it was therefore necessary to protect
investors against the possibility that they could lose most or all of
their investment in a hybrid security. Consequently, the Amex (and,

following the Amex's lead, the PCX) adopted a requirement that the
issuer of a mandatorily redeemable security could not redeem such
security at a price of less than $3.00. This provision provided
downside protection to investors and ensured that they would not
unknowingly purchase a security that would ultimately have little or no
intrinsic value. The NYSE never adopted such a requirement and the Amex
deleted this provision from its own rule in 1996 to conform to the
``Other Securities'' rule of the NYSE.
    The Exchange believes that a minimum redemption price requirement
may provide a desirable protection for investors in the case of certain
hybrid securities. In that regard, the Exchange notes that after
adoption of the proposed amendment issuers would still have the ability
to include a minimum redemption price provision in their securities
when doing so is desirable. However, the Exchange notes that requiring
a minimum redemption price of $3.00 deprives investors of the ability
to make the sort of investment choices that an investor can make when
an equity security declines in value, as it essentially forces the
issuer to redeem the securities as soon as possible after they fall
below that price, as the issuer would otherwise be at risk of having to
redeem the securities at a premium. In the absence of this automatic
redemption, investors would have greater flexibility in that they would
be able to choose either to continue to hold a security whose value had
significantly declined (on the basis that its value might recover) or
sell the security to avoid further losses. By contrast, the current
requirement would force investors to realize the loss associated with
the difference between their purchase price and the $3.00 redemption
price. The Exchange also notes that exchange-traded hybrid securities
now typically provide for the possibility of redemption of large blocks
of the securities at the option of the investor at regular intervals.
As such, an investor who owns a significant amount of the securities
and who is concerned about the trend in the value of the reference
asset for a hybrid security and its implications for the future value
of the hybrid security itself is able to require the issuer to redeem
his securities, thereby limiting his exposure to future declines in the
value of the hybrid security. Finally, the Exchange notes that the
``Other Securities'' standards of other national securities exchanges,
including the NYSE, NYSE Amex and Nasdaq, do not include mandatory
redemption provisions.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE Arca believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \9\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, 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. Specifically, the proposed
amendment is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because (i) if the automatic redemption requirement was no
longer applicable, investors would have greater flexibility in that
they would be able to choose either to continue to hold a security
whose value had significantly declined (on the basis that its value
might recover) or sell the security to limit their losses and (ii)
issuers will still have the ability to include a minimum redemption
price provision in their securities when doing so is desirable. In
addition, the proposed amendment is designed to remove an impediment to
a free and open market in that it would remove a requirement which is
not included in the comparable rules of competitor exchanges and would
therefore promote competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, 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) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of the 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-38 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-NYSEArca-2012-38. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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 available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-38 and should be submitted on or before
June 7, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11913 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68378-68381]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28648]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0801; FRL-9487-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia;
Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Fine Particle Standard for the
Metropolitan Washington and Martinsburg-Hagerstown Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Metropolitan
Washington, District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia (DC-MD-VA) and
Martinsburg-Hagerstown, West Virginia-Maryland (WV-MD) fine particle
(PM2.5) nonattainment areas (hereafter referred to as
``Areas'') have attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date
of April 5, 2010. These determinations are based upon complete,
quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the
2007-2009 monitoring period. EPA is finding these Areas to be in
attainment, in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0801 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0801, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0801. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://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, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. What is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background of these actions?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
IV. What are the effects of these actions?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is EPA proposing?

    In accordance with section 179(c)(1) of the CAA, EPA is proposing
to determine that the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA
PM2.5 nonattainment area and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-
MD PM2.5 nonattainment area have attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010. The proposal is based upon complete, quality-assured, and
certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring
period.

II. What is the background for these actions?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a health-based
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations (hereafter referred to as ``the annual PM2.5
NAAQS'' or ``the annual standard''). At that time, EPA also established
a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (the ``1997 24-hour standard'').
See 40 CFR 50.7. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air
quality designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for
calendar years 2001-2003. These designations became effective on April
5, 2005. The Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-
Hagerstown, WV-MD nonattainment areas were designated nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS during this designations process. See
40 CFR part 81.309 (the District), 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland), 40 CFR
81.347 (Virginia), and 40 CFR 81.349 (West Virginia).
    The Metropolitan Washington 1997 annual PM2.5
nonattainment area consists of the District of Columbia (the District),
a Northern Virginia portion (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince
William Counties and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax,
Manassas, and Manassas Park), and Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and
Prince George's Counties in Maryland. The Martinsburg-Hagerstown 1997
annual PM2.5 nonattainment area consists of Washington
County in Maryland and Berkley County in West Virginia.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations (the ``2006 24-hour standard'').
On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
and Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA areas as attainment for the 2006
24-hour standard (74 FR 58688). In that action, EPA also clarified the
designations for the NAAQS promulgated in 1997, stating that these
geographical Areas were designated as nonattainment for the annual
standard, but attainment for the 1997 24-hour standard (40 CFR part
81.309 for the District, 40 CFR part 81.321 for Maryland, 40 CFR part
81.347 for Virginia, and 40 CFR part 81.349 for West Virginia). Today's
action, however, does not address attainment designations of either the
1997 or the 2006 24-hour standard.
    In response to legal challenges of the annual standard promulgated
in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(DC Circuit) remanded this standard to EPA for further consideration.
See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers
Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). However, given
that the 1997 and 2006 annual standards are essentially identical,
attainment of the 1997 annual standard would also indicate attainment
of the remanded 2006 annual standard.
    EPA previously made clean data determinations related to the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS for each of these Areas pursuant to 40
CFR 51.1004(c). Determinations were made for the Metropolitan
Washington Area on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1146) and for the
Martinsburg-Hagerstown Area on November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199). These
clean data determinations remain in effect.
    Under CAA section 179(c), EPA is required to make a determination
that a nonattainment area has attained by its attainment date, and
publish that determination in the Federal Register. The determination
of attainment is not equivalent to a redesignation, and the states must
still meet the statutory requirements for redesignation in order for
the Areas to be redesignated to attainment.
    Complete, quality-assured, and certified PM2.5 air
quality monitoring data recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database for 2007 through 2009, show that the Metropolitan Washington,
DC-MD-VA and the

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD nonattainment areas attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by their applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant 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 data in the EPA AQS database for the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
nonattainment areas for the monitoring period from 2007 through 2009.
On the basis of that review, EPA has concluded that the Areas attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on data for the 2007-2009
monitoring period.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic
mean concentrations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, at all relevant
monitoring sites. The values calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part
50, appendix N, are referred to as design values, and these values are
used to determine if an area is attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS.
According to the PM2.5 implementation rule, the attainment
date for these Areas is April 5, 2010 and the monitoring data from 2007
through 2009 is used to determine if the Areas attained by April 5,
2010.
    Table 1 shows the annual PM2.5 design values for each
monitor in the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-
Hagerstown, WV-MD areas for the years 2007-2009. All 2007-2009 design
values are below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Based on these data, the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD areas have
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date.
A detailed summary of EPA's rationale for proposing these
determinations may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for
this action which is available on line at http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0801.

              Table 1--1997 Annual PM2.5 Design Values for the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD Areas *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Certified
                                                                                2007  Annual    2008  Annual    2009  Annual    design value
                State                           County                 Monitor ID              mean            mean            mean          2007-2009
                                                                                ([mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Metropolitan Washington, DC-VA-MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC...................................  District of Columbia...  110010041...............            13.6            12.0            10.5            12.0
                                       District of Columbia...  110010042...............            13.7            12.3            10.1            12.1
                                       District of Columbia...  110010043...............            13.0            11.6            10.2            11.6
VA...................................  Alexandria.............  No monitor..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       Arlington..............  510130020...............            13.8            12.0            10.1            11.9
                                       Fairfax................  510590030...............            12.5            11.1             9.8            11.1
                                       Farifax County.........  510591005...............            13.3            11.2             9.5            11.3
                                       Fairfax................  510595001...............            13.5            11.8             9.7            11.7
                                       Falls Church...........  No monitor..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       Loudoun................  511071005...............            12.8            11.5             9.2            11.2
                                       Manassas...............  No monitor..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       Manassas Park..........  No monitor..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
MD...................................  Charles................  No monitor..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       Frederick..............  No monitor..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                       Montgomery.............  240313001...............            11.7            10.8             9.4            10.7
                                       Prince George's........  240330025...............            14.1            12.4            10.7            12.4
                                       Prince George's........  240330030...............            11.8            10.9             8.7            10.5
                                       Prince George's........  240338003...............            12.4            11.2             8.8            10.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV...................................  Berkley................  240430009...............            12.9            11.8             9.7            11.5
MD...................................  Washington.............  540030003...............            15.6            14.2            12.1            14.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The data presented in Table 1 are available at http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/values.html.

IV. What are the effects of these actions?

    If EPA's proposed determination that the Metropolitan Washington,
DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD nonattainment areas have
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard by the applicable
attainment date (April 5, 2010) is finalized, EPA will have met its
requirement pursuant to section 179(c) of the CAA to make a
determination based on the Areas' air quality data as of the attainment
date that the Areas attained the standard by that date. The action
described above is a proposed determination regarding the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD Areas'
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Finalizing this proposed action would not constitute a
redesignation of the Areas to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further,
finalizing this proposed action does not involve approving maintenance
plans for the Areas as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor
would it find that the Areas have met all other requirements for
redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes the proposed action, the
designation status of the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the
Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD areas would remain nonattainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines
that the Areas meet the CAA requirements for redesignation to
attainment and take action to redesignate the Metropolitan Washington,
DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD areas.

    EPA is soliciting comment on the action discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action. Please
note that if EPA receives adverse comment on either of the proposed
determinations described above and if that determination may be severed
from the remainder of the final agency action, EPA may adopt as final
these provisions of the final agency action that are not the subject of
an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make attainment determinations based on air
quality data and would not, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements and would not impose any additional
requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, these proposed PM2.5 NAAQS attainment
determinations for the Metropolitan Washington and Martinsburg-
Hagerstown Areas, do 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
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, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: October 25, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-28648 Filed 11-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74223-74225]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0298]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
3 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from
the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals
will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than
the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective January 5, 2014. Comments must be
received on or before January 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2011-
0298], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement

page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 3 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 3 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Michael P. Eisenreich (MN)
John T. Thor (MN)
George G. Ulferts, Jr. (IA)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 3 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (76 FR 70213; 77 FR 541). Each of these 3 applicants has
requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement
specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is
stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving
with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 9, 2014.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 3 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2011-0298 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, to submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-2011-0298 and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: December 3, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-29419 Filed 12-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 5557]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX17-1-000]

Wheatridge Wind Energy, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on January 6, 2017, pursuant to sections 210, 211,
and 212 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824i, 824j, and 824k, and
Part 36 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Regulations, 18 CFR part 36, Wheatridge Wind Energy, LLC submitted an
application for an order directing the provision of interconnection and
transmission service.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 5 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on January 27, 2017.

    Dated: January 9, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00935 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Personal Communication: Between Kevin Pechulis, U. S. EPA RCRA Hotline, and Industrial Economics, Incorporated Date: March 19, 1998 Content: Kevin Pechulis answered questions regarding tribal governments' permitting authorities under the HWC MACT standards. According to Mr. Pechulis, tribal governments will not be required to assume any permitting responsibilities associated with the proposed HWC MACT replacement standards because permitting authority is voluntary for non federal government entities. He added that no tribal governments have assumed permitting authority to date although the Clean Air Act does allow tribal governments to implement permitting requirements.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56642-56643]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19922]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-8-000]

Transmission Planning and Cost Management; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this
proceeding on April 21, 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene a Commissioner-led technical conference
regarding transmission planning and cost management for transmission
facilities developed through local or regional transmission planning
processes in the above-captioned proceeding on October 6, 2022, from
approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
    The purpose of this conference is to explore measures to ensure
sufficient

transparency into and cost effectiveness of local and regional
transmission planning decisions, including: (1) the role of cost
management measures in ensuring the cost-effective identification of
local transmission needs (e.g., planning criteria) and solutions to
address identified local transmission and regional reliability-related
transmission needs; and (2) cost considerations and the processes
through which transmission developers recover their costs to ensure
just and reasonable transmission rates. Additionally, this conference
will also discuss potential approaches to providing enhanced cost
management measures and greater transparency and oversight if needed to
ensure just and reasonable transmission rates.
    Attached to this Supplemental Notice is an agenda for the technical
conference, which includes the conference program and expected
panelists.
    Panelists are asked to submit advance materials to provide any
information related to their respective panel (e.g., summary
statements, reports, whitepapers, studies, or testimonies) that
panelists believe should be included in the record of this proceeding
by September 16, 2022. Panelists should file all advance materials in
the AD22-8-000 docket.
    An additional supplemental notice will be issued following the
technical conference with the opportunity for interested parties to
submit post-technical conference comments.
    The technical conference will be open to the public and there is no
fee for attendance. Information will also be posted on the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    The workshop will be held at the Commission on 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20002. It will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts
will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting<PHONE_NUMBER>). A link
to the webcast of this event will be available in the Commission
Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov. The Capitol Connection provides
technical support for the webcasts and offers the option of listening
to the workshop via phone-bridge for a fee. For additional information,
visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact John Riehl at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 8, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19922 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3391-3393]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1240]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because
of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates
will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed
in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administrator reconsider the changes. The
modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each
community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief
Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE
determinations are available for inspection is provided.
    Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of
changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in
accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This interim rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This interim rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This interim rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This interim rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Date and name of
         State and county           Location and case No.     newspaper where     Chief executive officer   Effective date of  modification   Community
                                                           notice was published         of community                                             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:
    Mobile........................  City of Mobile (11-04- November 10, 2011;    The Honorable Samuel L.    March 16, 2012.................       015007
                                     2597P).                November 17, 2011;    Jones, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Press-Register.   Mobile, 205 Government
                                                                                Street, South Tower,
                                                                                10th Floor, Mobile, AL
                                                                                36602.
    Mobile........................  Unincorporated areas   December 1, 2011;     The Honorable Connie       April 6, 2012..................       015008
                                     of Mobile County (11-  December 8, 2011;     Hudson, President,
                                     04-5528P).             The Press-Register.   Mobile County
                                                                                Commission, 205
                                                                                Government Street,
                                                                                Mobile, AL 36644.
Arizona:
    Cochise.......................  City of Sierra Vista   October 28, 2011;     The Honorable Rick         October 20, 2011...............       040017
                                     (11-09-2096P).         November 4, 2011;     Mueller, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Sierra Vista      Sierra Vista, 1011 North
                                                            Herald.               Coronado Drive, Sierra
                                                                                Vista, AZ 85635.
    Maricopa......................  City of Glendale (11-  November 24, 2011;    The Honorable Elaine M.    March 30, 2012.................       040045
                                     09-3464P).             December 1, 2011;     Scruggs, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Arizona           Glendale, 5850 West
                                                            Business Gazette.     Glendale Avenue,
                                                                                Glendale, AZ 85301.
    Maricopa......................  City of Peoria (11-09- November 24, 2011;..  The Honorable Bob          March 30, 2012.................       040050
                                     3464P).               December 1, 2011;      Barrett, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Arizona           Peoria, 8401 West Monroe
                                                            Business Gazette.     Street, Peoria, AZ 85345.
California:
    Orange........................  City of Laguna Beach   November 4, 2011;     The Honorable Toni         March 12, 2012.................       060223
                                     (11-09-3647P).         November 11, 2011;    Iseman, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Laguna Beach      Laguna Beach, 505 Forest
                                                            Coastline Pilot.      Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA
                                                                                92651.
    Santa Clara...................  City of San Jose (12-  December 2, 2011;     The Honorable Chuck Reed,  December 22, 2011..............       060349
                                     09-0140P).             December 9, 2011;     Mayor, City of San Jose,
                                                            The San Jose          200 East Santa Clara
                                                            Mercury News.         Street, San Jose, CA
                                                                                95113.
Colorado:
    El Paso.......................  City of Colorado       November 2, 2011;     The Honorable Steve Bach,  March 8, 2012..................       080060
                                     Springs (11-08-        November 9, 2011;     Mayor, City of Colorado
                                     0869P).                The El Paso County    Springs, 30 South Nevada
                                                            Advertiser and News.  Avenue, Colorado
                                                                                Springs, CO 80903.
    El Paso.......................  Unincorporated areas   November 2, 2011;     The Honorable Dennis       March 8, 2012..................       080059
                                     of El Paso County      November 9, 2011;     Hisey, Chairman, El Paso
                                     (11-08-0869P).         The El Paso County    County Board of
                                                            Advertiser and News.  Commissioners, 27 East
                                                                                Vermijo Avenue, Colorado
                                                                                Springs, CO 80903.
Florida:
    Escambia......................  Unincorporated areas   November 25, 2011;    The Honorable Wilson       November 17, 2011..............       120080
                                     of Escambia County     December 2, 2011;     Robertson, Chairman,
                                     (11-04-7674P).         The Pensacola News    Escambia County Board of
                                                            Journal.              Commissioners, 221
                                                                                Palafox Place, Suite
                                                                                400, Pensacola, FL 32502.
    Indian River..................  Town of Indian River   November 25, 2011;    The Honorable Thomas W.    November 17, 2011..............       120121
                                     Shores (11-04-7942P).  December 2, 2011;     Cadden, Mayor, Town of
                                                            The Indian River      Indian River Shores,
                                                            Press Journal.        6001 North Highway A1A,
                                                                                Indian River Shores, FL
                                                                                32963.
    Lee...........................  Unincorporated areas   November 25, 2011;    The Honorable John         November 17, 2011..............       125124
                                     of Lee County (12-04-  December 2, 2011;     Manning, Chairman, Lee
                                     0044P).                The News-Press.       County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, 2120 Main
                                                                                Street, Fort Myers, FL
                                                                                33901.
    Orange........................  City of Orlando (11-   November 22, 2011;    The Honorable Buddy Dyer,  March 28, 2012.................       120186
                                     04-7338P).             November 29, 2011;    Mayor, City of Orlando,
                                                            The Orlando           400 South Orange Avenue,
                                                            Sentinel.             Orlando, FL 32802.
    Seminole......................  Unincorporated areas   November 4, 2011;     The Honorable Brenda       October 26, 2011...............       120289
                                     of Seminole County     November 11, 2011;    Carey, Chair, Seminole
                                     (11-04-8756X).         The Orlando           County Board of
                                                            Sentinel.             Commissioners, 1101 East
                                                                                1st Street, Sanford, FL
                                                                                32771.
Georgia: Cherokee.................  Unincorporated areas   October 7, 2011;      The Honorable L. B.        February 13, 2012..............       130424
                                     of Cherokee County     October 14, 2011;     Ahrens, Jr., Chairman,
                                     (10-04-8275P).         The Cherokee          Cherokee County Board of
                                                            Tribune.              Commissioners, 1130
                                                                                Bluffs Parkway, Canton,
                                                                                GA 30114.
Hawaii:...........................  City and County of     November 10, 2011;    The Honorable Peter B.     March 16, 2012.................       150001
                                     Honolulu (11-09-       November 17, 2011;    Carlisle, Mayor, City
                                     3899P).                The Honolulu Star-    and County of Honolulu,
                                                            Advertiser.           530 South King Street,
                                                                                Room 300, Honolulu, HI
                                                                                96813.
Mississippi:
    Lee...........................  City of Saltillo (10-  November 4, 2011;     The Honorable Bill         March 12, 2012.................       280261
                                     04-8523P).             November 11, 2011;    Williams, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Northeast         Saltillo, 395 Mobile
                                                            Mississippi Daily     Street, Saltillo, MS
                                                            Journal.              38866.
    Lee...........................  Unincorporated areas   November 4, 2011;     The Honorable Joe          March 12, 2012.................       280227
                                     of Lee County (10-04-  November 11, 2011;    McKinney, Chairman, Lee
                                     8523P).                The Northeast         County Board of
                                                            Mississippi Daily     Supervisors, 200 West
                                                            Journal.              Jefferson Street, Suite
                                                                                100, Tupelo, MS 38801.
Wyoming:
    Campbell......................  City of Gillette (11-  October 21, 2011;     The Honorable Tom Murphy,  February 27, 2012..............       560007
                                     08-0781P).             October 28, 2011;     Mayor, City of Gillette,
                                                            The News-Record.      201 East 5th Street,
                                                                                Gillette, WY 82717.
     Campbell.....................  Unincorporated areas   October 21, 2011;     The Honorable Stephen F.   February 27, 2012..............       560081
                                     of Campbell County     October 28, 2011;     Hughes, Chairman,
                                     (11-08-0781P).         The News-Record.      Campbell County Board of
                                                                                Directors, 500 South
                                                                                Gillette Avenue, Suite
                                                                                1100, Gillette,
                                                                                WY 82716.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-1318 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P