[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30066-30068]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13496]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0734; FRL-9995-68-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Indiana RACT SIP and Negative
Declaration for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Control Techniques
Guidelines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a ``Negative Declaration'' for the State of Indiana regarding
the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for the Oil and Gas Industry
issued by EPA on October 20, 2016. Indiana has evaluated areas for
which the Oil and Natural Gas Industry CTG must be applied under the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA has
included Lake and Porter counties as part of the Chicago-Naperville,
IL-IN-WI Moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements
would be applicable for sources covered by the CTGs in Lake and Porter
counties. No covered sources were found in Lake and Porter counties.
Approval of this Negative Declaration supports EPA's February 13, 2019
approval of Indiana's volatile organic compounds (VOC) RACT
Certification for Lake and Porter Counties.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0734, at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for

submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<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 the background for this action?
    II. What is EPA's evaluation of indiana's submittal?
    III. What action is EPA proposing?
    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On June 11, 2012,\1\ EPA designated the Chicago area as a marginal
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Chicago area includes
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties and parts of
Grundy and Kendall Counties in Illinois; Lake and Porter Counties in
Indiana; and part of Kenosha County in Wisconsin. On May 4, 2016,\2\
pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA
determined that the Chicago area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the July 20, 2015, marginal area attainment deadline and thus
reclassified the area from marginal to moderate nonattainment. In that
action, EPA established January 1, 2017, as the due date for the state
to submit all moderate area nonattainment plan state implementation
plan (SIP) requirements applicable to newly reclassified areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 34221, effective July 20, 2012.
    \2\ 81 FR 26697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indiana submitted a SIP revision request on February 28, 2017, and
submitted supplemental information on January 9, 2018, to address the
moderate area requirements for the Indiana portion of the Chicago area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The submission contained a number of
nonattainment plan elements, including a certification that the
existing VOC rules contained in 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 8
satisfy the VOC RACT requirements of Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA and
have been approved into the SIP by EPA. The submission addressed the
SIP elements that were due on January 1, 2017. Indiana also certified
that the Negative Declaration approved into the SIP by EPA for the
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials CTG is still current. EPA
approved Indiana's moderate SIP element submission on February 13, 2019
(84 FR 3711).
    On October 20, 2016, EPA issued a CTG for the Oil and Natural Gas
Industry (Oil and Gas CTG). Under sections 182 and 184 of the CAA,
states must implement RACT to limit VOC emissions from sources covered
by the Oil and Gas CTG in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
``moderate'' or above for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The Oil and Gas CTG includes RACT recommendations for storage
tanks, centrifugal and reciprocating compressors, pneumatic controllers
and pumps, and equipment leaks from natural gas processing plants, as
well as VOC leaks at gathering and boosting stations and oil and gas
well sites. Requirements are also established for storage tanks,
pneumatic controllers and pneumatic pumps at low-producing well sites.
    States that are subject to RACT requirements must revise their SIPs
to include their determinations for sources covered by the Oil and Gas
CTG. If a state confirms there are no covered sources within its
jurisdiction, it can submit a Negative Declaration. The Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has determined that no
emission sources covered by the Oil and Gas CTG exist within the
portions of Lake and Porter Counties, which are part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI Moderate Nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. As a result, IDEM submitted a Negative Declaration on October
25, 2018.

II. What is EPA's evaluation of Indiana's submittal?

    IDEM searched its oil and gas well records and air permit records
and evaluated potentially affected emissions sources to determine
whether there were any sources covered by the Oil and Natural Gas
Industry CTG.
    The Indiana Department of Natural Resources' (IDNR) Division of Oil
and Gas administers Indiana's oil and gas statutes and regulates
petroleum exploration and production operations including: well
spacing, exploration, permitting, drilling, completion, production, and
abandonment operations; underground injection of fluids for enhanced
oil recovery or for production fluid disposal; and the underground
storage of natural gas or other petroleum products in underground
formations. IDEM conducted a search of permitted oil and natural gas
wells in Lake and Porter counties using IDNR's online permit database.
This search showed that no active oil or gas production wells exist in
Lake or Porter counties.
    EPA's CTG lists six source categories along with the applicability
criteria and RACT recommendation for each emission source category. As
an example, storage vessels are one of these potentially subject
emission sources. The applicability criteria are any individual storage
vessel with a potential to emit greater than or equal to six tons per
year (tpy) of VOC. The RACT recommendation is 95 percent reduction or
maintain less than 4 tpy uncontrolled actual VOC emissions. The other
source categories are pneumatic controllers, pneumatic pumps,
centrifugal and reciprocating compressors, equipment leaks and fugitive
emissions.
    IDEM conducted a search of Indiana's air permit database to
identify potentially affected emissions sources, based upon applicable
SIC codes, in Lake and Porter counties. No covered emissions sources
were identified in Porter County. Three facilities in Lake County were
identified and selected for further evaluation based on their SIC codes
and descriptions. These facilities are:
     Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC--North Hayden
Substation, which is described as a stationary natural gas transmission
and distribution facility,
     Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC--Vector Crown
Point Substation, which is described as a natural gas fired pipeline
heater, and

     ANR Pipeline Company--St. John Station, which is described
as a stationary natural gas compressor station.
    IDEM reviewed the 6 emission source categories, described above,
for each of these three facilities and found that either there were no
potentially subject sources or that the source was below the
applicability cutoff. As an example, neither Northern Indiana Public
Service Company LLC has storage tanks and ANR Pipeline Company--St.
John Station has one condensate storage tank with a PTE of 0.35 tpy
VOC, which is below the RACT cutoff of six tpy VOC.
    During its public comment period, IDEM received a comment from the
Hoosier Environmental Council, who inquired about the absence of bulk
storage tank facilities in northern Lake County in the applicability
analysis. The commenter provided Enbridge and Citgo as examples.
    In response to the comment IDEM identified and evaluated bulk
petroleum storage facilities in the affected area. IDEM performed a
search for bulk petroleum storage facilities associated with the
extraction and production of crude oil. None of the bulk petroleum
storage facilities in Lake and Porter counties are located at
extraction sites or associated with crude oil production. Therefore,
the bulk petroleum storage facilities in Lake and Porter Counties do
not meet the applicability criteria in the CTG.
    EPA has reviewed Indiana's Negative Declaration regarding the Oil
and Gas CTG issued on October 20, 2016. As discussed in detail above,
Indiana found no sources covered by the CTG in Lake or Porter Counties.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the state's submission as
meeting the VOC RACT requirement for the Indiana portion of the Chicago
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Approval of this Negative Declaration
supports EPA's February 13, 2019 approval of Indiana's VOC RACT
Certification for Lake and Porter Counties.

III. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's Negative Declaration for the
Oil and Gas CTG. Approval of this negative declaration will support the
February 13, 2019 approval of Indiana's VOC RACT Certification for Lake
and Porter counties.

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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 13, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-13496 Filed 6-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77070-77072]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31178]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76567; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

December 7, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 24, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule.\3\ Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to increase the Customer Priority Surcharge fee
assessed to contracts executed in VIX volatility index options (``VIX
options'') and weekly S&P 500 options (``SPXW options''). Currently,
the VIX Customer Priority Surcharge (``VIX Surcharge'') is assessed on
all Customer (C) VIX contracts executed electronically that are Maker
and not Market Turner. Additionally, the VIX Surcharge is only assessed
on such contracts that have a premium of $0.11 or greater. The Exchange
proposes to increase the VIX Surcharge from $0.10 per contract to $0.20
per contract on such contracts that have a premium of $0.11 or greater.
The SPXW Customer Priority Surcharge (``SPXW Surcharge'') is currently
assessed on all Customer (C) SPXW contracts executed electronically.\4\
The Exchange also proposes to increase the SPXW Surcharge from $0.05
per contract to $0.10 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change on
November 2, 2015 (SR-CBOE-2015-101). On November 24, 2015, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
    \4\ The SPXW Surcharge is not assessed to contracts executed by
a floor broker using a PAR terminal or orders in SPXW options in
SPXW electronic book that are executed during opening rotation on
the final settlement day of VIX options and futures which have the
expiration that contribute to the VIX settlement calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Fees Schedule with respect
to the Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Orders Rate Table. By way
of background, the Fees Schedule currently provides for a ``QCC Rate
Table'' which sets forth a transaction fee and credit for QCC
transactions. In addition, the ``Notes'' section of the QCC Rate Table
includes the definition of a QCC transaction. Specifically the
``Notes'' section currently provides that ``A QCC transaction is
comprised of an `initiating order' to buy (sell) at least 1,000
contracts, coupled with a contra-side order to sell (buy) an equal
number of contracts . . .'' The Exchange notes that it recently amended
its QCC rules to expand the availability of QCC orders

by permitting multiple contra-parties on a QCC order.\5\ As such, the
definition of QCC Orders in CBOE Rule 6.53 has been amended. The
Exchange proposes to similarly amend the Fees Schedule to incorporate
this new definition to maintain consistency in the Rules and Fees
Schedule and avoid potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75756 (August 25,
2015), 80 FR 168 (August 31, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
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. The Exchange
also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Trading Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the SPXW and VIX Customer Priority
Surcharge increases are reasonable because the amount of the new fees
are within the range of surcharges assessed for customer transactions
in other CBOE proprietary products (for example customers are currently
assessed a $0.20 Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge (which essentially acts
as a customer priority surcharge) in SPX options).
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess the SPXW and VIX Priority Surcharges to
Customers and not other market participants because Customers are not
subject to additional costs for effecting transactions in SPXW and VIX
which are applicable to other market participants, such as license
surcharges. Additionally, Customers are not subject to fees applicable
to other market participants such as connectivity fees and fees
relating to Trading Permits, and are not subject to the same
obligations as other market participants, including regulatory and
compliance requirements and quoting obligations.
    The Exchange notes that the VIX Surcharge was adopted to minimize
the cost differentials between manual and electronic executions (as
Floor Brokers assess a commission on customer executions). As such, the
Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
assess the VIX Surcharge to Makers and not Takers because electronic
Maker orders are analogous to customer orders represented by Floor
Brokers in open outcry (as compared to Takers that immediately remove
liquidity and do not rest in the book). The Exchange believes it's
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess only Makers in VIX
and both Makers and Takers in SPXW because the SPX product group has
reached a mature and established level since its introduction while VIX
has not and the Exchange therefore wants to incentivize liquidity in
VIX and not discourage trading. The Exchange also notes that another
S&P 500 product (SPX) also charges a surcharge to both Makers and
Takers (i.e., the Hybrid 3.0 Surcharge). The Exchange believes that it
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only assess the VIX
Surcharge to Maker Non-Turners because the Exchange wants to encourage
improving the market (``turning'').
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to only assess the VIX Surcharge when the contract
premium is at least $0.11 because the Exchange wants to reduce costs on
low priced VIX options to encourage Customers to close and roll over
positions close to expiration at low premium levels. Currently, such
Customers are less likely to do this because the transaction fee is
closer to the premium level. The Exchange believes that maintaining
lowered fees overall for VIX options trading with a premium of $0.00-
$0.10 will encourage the trading of such options. As such, the Exchange
does not wish to assess the VIX Surcharge on such options in order to
keep the costs low.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that codifying the amended
definition of a QCC transaction in the Fees Schedule (in addition to
the Exchange's Rules, where it is currently provided for), will
alleviate potential confusion and maintain clarity in the Fees
Schedule, which serves 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.

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

    CBOE 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 because, while different
electronic transaction fees are assessed to different market
participants, different market participants have different obligations
and circumstances as noted above. The Exchange believes that the
proposal to increase the surcharge amount assessed to Customers for
executions in SPXW and VIX contracts will not cause an unnecessary
burden on intermarket competition because SPXW and VIX are only traded
on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more
attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such
market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.
    Additionally, the proposed change to codify in the Fees Schedule
the revised definition of a QCC order is not intended for competitive
reasons and only applies to CBOE. The Exchange notes that no rights or
obligations of Trading Permit Holders are affected by this particular
change.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder. 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule

change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2015-109 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-109. 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-CBOE-2015-109, and should be
submitted on or before January 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31178 Filed 12-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Def_ CE API's Field and Gas Plant Survey Field Name Definition ID county State Drivers 300E # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, electric AT PRODUCTION SITES 300 2rich # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn 300 2cat # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls 300 2lean # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn 300 2clean # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn 300 4rich # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn 300 4cat # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls 300 4lean # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn 300 4clean # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn 500E # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, electric 500 2rich # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn 500 2cat # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls 500 2lean # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn 500 2clean # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn 500 4rich # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn 500 4cat # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls 500 4lean # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn 500 4clean # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn 750E # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, electric 750 2rich # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn 720 2cat # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls 750 2lean # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn 750 2clean # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn 750 4rich # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn 750 4cat # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls 750 4lean # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn 750 4clean # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn 1000E # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, electric 1000 2rich # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn 1000 2cat # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls 1000 2lean # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn 1000 2clean # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn 1000 4rich # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn 1000 4cat # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls 1000 4lean # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn 1000 4clean # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn > 1000E # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, electric > 1000 2rich # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn > 1000 2cat # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls > 1000 2lean # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn > 1000 2clean # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn > 1000 4rich # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn > 1000 4cat # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls > 1000 4lean # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn > 1000 4clean # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn Fuel rich Fuel source for rich burn engines Fuel cat Fuel source for % rich burn w/ catalytic control engines Fuel lean Fuel source for lean burn engines Fuel clean Fuel source for clean burn engines. C 300E # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, electric AT COMPRESSOR SITES C 300 2rich # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn C 300 2cat # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C 300 2lean # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn C 300 2clean # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn Page 1 Def_ CE C 300 4rich # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn C 300 4cat # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C 300 4lean # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn C 300 4clean # compressor engines, 150 300 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn C 500E # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, electric C 500 2rich # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn C 500 2cat # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C 500 2lean # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn C 500 2clean # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn C 500 4rich # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn C 500 4cat # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C 500 4lean # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn C 500 4clean # compressor engines, 301 500 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn C 750E # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, electric C 750 2rich # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn C 750 2cat # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C 750 2lean # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn C 750 2clean # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 2 stroke, clean burnw3 C 750 4rich # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn C 750 4cat # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C 750 4lean # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn C 750 4clean # compressor engines, 501 750 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn C 1000E # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, electric C 1000 2rich # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn C 1000 2cat # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C 1000 2lean # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn C 1000 2clean # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn C 1000 4rich # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn C 1000 4cat # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C 1000 4lean # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn C 1000 4clean # compressor engines, 751 1000 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn C> 1000E # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, electric C> 1000 2rich # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 2 stroke, rich burn C> 1000 2cat # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C> 1000 2lean # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 2 stroke, lean burn C> 1000 2clean # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 2 stroke, clean burn C> 1000 4rich # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 4 stroke, rich burn C> 1000 4cat # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn w/ catalytic controls C> 1000 4lean # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 4 stroke, lean burn C> 1000 4clean # compressor engines, > 1000 hp, 4 stroke, clean burn C fuel rich Fuel source for rich burn engines C fuel cat Fuel source for % rich burn w/ catalytic control engines C fuel lean Fuel source for lean burn engines C fuel clean Fuel source for clean burn engines. T< 1000 p # turbines, < 1000 hp, at plant site T< 1000 c # turbines, < 1000 hp, at compressor site T 5000 p # turbines 1001 5000 hp at plant site T 5000 c # turbines 1001 5000 hp at compressor site T 15000 p # turbines 5001 15000 hp at plant site T 15000 c # turbines 5001 15000 hp at compressor site T 25000 p # turbines 15001 25000 hp at plant site T 25000 c # turbines 15001 25000 hp at compressor site T> 25000 p # turbines > 25000 hp at plant site T> 25000 c # turbines > 25000 hp at compressor site T fuel p Turbine fuel source at plant site T fuel c Turbine fuel source at compressor site IC 300 2rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 150 300 Hp, 2 stroke, rich burn IC 300 2cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 150 300 Hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC 300 2lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 150 300 Hp, 2 stroke, lean burn Page 2 Def_ CE IC 300 2clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 150 300 Hp, 2 stroke, clean burn IC 300 4rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 150 300 Hp, 4 stroke, rich burn IC 300 4cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 150 300 Hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC 300 4lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 150 300 Hp, 4 stroke, lean burn IC 300 4clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 150 300 Hp, 4 stroke, clean burn IC 500 2rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 301 500 Hp, 2 stroke, rich burn IC 500 2cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 301 500 Hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC 500 2lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 301 500 Hp, 2 stroke, lean burn IC 500 2clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 301 500 Hp, 2 stroke, clean burn IC 500 4rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 301 500 Hp, 4 stroke, rich burn IC 500 4cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 301 500 Hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC 500 4lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 301 500 Hp, 4 stroke, lean burn IC 500 4clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 301 500 Hp, 4 stroke, clean burn IC 750 2rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 501 750 Hp, 2 stroke, rich burn IC 750 2cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 501 750 Hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC 750 2lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 501 750 Hp, 2 stroke, lean burn IC 750 2clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 501 750 Hp, 2 stroke, clean burn IC 750 4rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 501 750 Hp, 4 stroke, rich burn IC 750 4cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 501 750 Hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC 750 4lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 501 750 Hp, 4 stroke, lean burn IC 750 4clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 501 750 Hp, 4 stroke, clean burn IC 1000 2rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 2 stroke, rich burn IC 1000 2cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC 1000 2lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 2 stroke, lean burn IC 1000 2clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 2 stroke, clean burn IC 1000 4rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 4 stroke, rich burn IC 1000 4cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC 1000 4lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 4 stroke, lean burn IC 1000 4clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 4 stroke, clean burn IC> 1000 2rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 2 stroke, rich burn IC> 1000 2cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 2 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC> 1000 2lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 2 stroke, lean burn IC> 1000 2clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 2 stroke, clean burn Page 3 Def_ CE IC> 1000 4rich # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 4 stroke, rich burn IC> 1000 4cat # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 4 stroke, % rich burn with catalyic controls IC> 1000 4lean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 4 stroke, lean burn IC> 1000 4clean # internal combustion engines ( excl. compressors) 751 1000 Hp, 4 stroke, clean burn IC fuel rich Fuel source for rich burn engines IC fuel cat Fuel source for % rich burn w/ catalytic control engines IC fuel lean Fuel source for lean burn engines IC fuel clean Fuel source for clean burn engines. Turbine1 # Turbines < 1000 Hp Turbine2 # Turbines 1001 5000 Hp Turbine3 # Turbines 5001 15000 Hp Turbine4 # Turbines 15001 25001 Hp Turbine5 # Turbines > 25000 Hp Turbfuel Fuel Souce for Turbines Page 4


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14613-14614]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04857]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign
Utility Company Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moss Landing Energy Storage 3, LLC...........  EG23-29-000
Chesapeake Solar Project, LLC................  EG23-30-000
East Point Energy Center, LLC................  EG23-31-000
Diversion Wind Energy Holdings LLC...........  EG23-32-000
Wagon Wheel Wind Project Holdings LLC........  EG23-33-000
Wagon Wheel Wind Project, LLC................  EG23-34-000
Diversion Wind Energy LLC....................  EG23-35-000

Paris Farm Solar, LLC........................  EG23-36-000
Waco Solar, LLC..............................  EG23-37-000
Rodeo Ranch Energy Storage, LLC..............  EG23-38-000
Hecate Energy Albany 2 LLC...................  EG23-39-000
Hecate Energy Albany 1 LLC...................  EG23-40-000
GRP TE Lessee, LLC...........................  EG23-41-000
Kapolei Energy Storage I, LLC................  EG23-42-000
Remy Jade Generating, LLC....................  EG23-43-000
PGR 2022 Lessee 2, LLC.......................  EG23-44-000
Cathcart Solar, LLC..........................  EG23-45-000
Fresh Air Energy XXXVII, LLC.................  EG23-46-000
Thigpen Farms Solar, LLC.....................  EG23-47-000
Fresh Air Energy XXIII, LLC..................  EG23-48-000
Diablo Winds, LLC............................  EG23-49-000
Carson Hybrid Energy Center LLC..............  EG23-50-000
Enery Holdings LLC...........................  EG23-51-000
Gambit Energy Storage LLC....................  EG23-52-000
Parc du Banc de Gu[eacute]rande SAS..........  FC23-2-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of February 2023, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2021).

    Dated: March 3, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04857 Filed 3-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


$ AutoSpell: 1 In_ Reply_ To: < OF57962AFA. E599577A ON85256F02.00499024 85256F02.004A998B@ LocalDo main> $ Links: $ AltNameLanguageTags: InheritedReplyTo: InheritedFrom: CN= Geffry King/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US InheritedAltFrom: CN= Geffry King/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US InheritedFromDomain: Logo: StdNotesLtr27 useApplet: True Sign: 0 DefaultMailSaveOptions: 1 Query_ String: PRINCIPAL: CN= Bonnie Robinson/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US Subject: Re: Prepublication of RCRA 2003 0002, RCRA 2003 0003 SendTo: CN= Geffry King/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US@ EPA CopyTo: CN= Alexander Livnat/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US@ EPA, CN= Lisa Medley/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA / C= US@ EPA, CN= Scott Maid/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US@ EPA, CN= Sheila Boyd/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US @ EPA, CN= Truett Degeare/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US@ EPA, CN= Steve Souders/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= U S@ EPA, CN= Richard Kinch/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US@ EPA INetSendTo: King. Geffry@ epamail. epa. gov INetCopyTo: Livnat. Alexander@ epamail. epa. gov, Medley. Lisa@ epamail. epa. gov, Maid. S cott@ epamail. epa. gov, Boyd. Sheila@ epamail. epa. gov,.,.,. $ StorageTo: 1 $ StorageCc: 1,1,1,1,0,0,0 $ Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF2 July 23, 2003 $ MessageID: < OF12B2CA4A. 1180863E ON85256F08.00673CA2 85256F08.00745DD3@ LocalDom ain> From: CN= Bonnie Robinson/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US INetFrom: Robinson. Bonnie@ epamail. epa. gov PostedDate: 09/ 07/ 2004 05: 10: 06 PM Encrypt: $ UpdatedBy: CN= Bonnie Robinson/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US,, CN= DCCMMAIL12/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US RouteServers: CN= DCCMMAIL12/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US, CN= DCICMAIL17/ OU= DC/ O= USEPA/ C= US RouteTimes: 09/ 07/ 2004 05: 10: 06 PM 09/ 07/ 2004 05: 10: 06 PM, 09/ 07/ 2004 05: 19: 46 P M 09/ 07/ 2004 05: 19: 46 PM $ Orig: 12B2CA4A1180863E85256F0800673CA2 Categories: $ Revisions: $ MsgTrackFlags: 0 DeliveredDate: 09/ 07/ 2004 05: 19: 46 PM Importance:

Thank you for explaining the status of the material in the 2 referenced dockets. I authorize publication of Docket RCRA 2003 0002, Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Management Rule, Part 2.

Regarding the copyrighted material you mention, if you send me a list of those items, I will see if we can get permission from the copyright holders.

Again, thanks for your help in preparing these dockets for publication. Let me know if there is anything else we can do.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 4, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2004-17125

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

Application of    COMAIR, INC.,   filed  2/13/04 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Atlanta, Georgia, and Monterrey, Mexico, and to combine this
exemption authority with Comair’s existing certificate and exemption
authority, consistent with applicable international agreements.  Comair,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta), states that
it will operate under the “DL” code as a “Delta Connection”
carrier.

XX Statement of Authorization for Comair, Inc., for indefinite duration
under Part 212 of the Department’s Regulations to:

Display the “AM” designator code of Aerovias de Mexico, S.A., de
C.V. (Aeromexico) on flights operated by Comair between Atlanta,
Georgia, and Monterrey, Mexico.

Applicant reps: Robert E. Cohn (Comair)<PHONE_NUMBER> DOT Analyst:
Linda Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action granting new exemption authority to Comair was
effective when

taken:  March 4, 2004,   through _March 4, 2006  .

The above action granting a statement of authorization to Comair was
effective when

taken:    March 4, 2004, and will remain in effect indefinitely, subject
to the conditions below.

Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX   Comair’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX   Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

Conditions:   The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted to Comair is
subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of
Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy
notice period will begin May 1, 2004, Comair’s proposed start-up date
for these services.

- see next page -																2

The route integration authority granted to Comair is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority granted should be construed as
conferring upon Comair rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Comair notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights); (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in Comair’s authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Comair, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for Comair in a competitive carrier selection
proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the
authority at issue.

The Statement of Authorization granted Comair is subject to the
following conditions:

 The statement of authorization will remain in effect only as long as
Comair and Aeromexico continue to hold the underlying authority to
operate the code-share services at issue, and the code-share agreement
providing for the code-share operations remains in effect.

  Comair and/or Aeromexico must promptly notify the Department (Office
of International Aviation) if the code-share agreement is no longer
effective or if the carriers decide to cease operating all or a portion
of the approved code-share services.  (Such notice should be filed in
Docket OST-2004-17125).

  The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s regulations
concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding
any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here
is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the subject foreign
air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out such
service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere; that the carrier
selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket)
accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all
obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger;
and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier be unaffected;
and

  The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither
Comair nor Aeromexico shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
_________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

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

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

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

						APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

											8/2003

   Aeromexico already holds exemption authority to conduct scheduled
combination service in the Atlanta-Monterrey market (see Notice of
Action Taken dated September 23, 2003, in Docket OST-2001-10369).

   We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.


[Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 75533-75534]
[DOCID:fr15de06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

December 11, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No: 2210-143.
    c. Date filed: October 10, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Roanoke River, in
Bedford, Pittsylvania, Franklin, and Roanoke Counties, Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
and Sec.  Sec.  799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Teresa P. Rogers, Hydro Generation
Department, Appalachian Power, P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke, VA 24022-2121,
(540) 985-2441.
    i. FERC Contact: Brian Romanek at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: January 12, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2210-143) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee requests a variance be
granted to Willard Companies (Willard) for the construction of four
floating docks accommodating 17 boats and to maintain an existing boat
ramp, all of which would serve a residential community, known as ``The
Farms at Smith Mountain Lake'' (located in Franklin County near Rocky
Mount, Virginia). The licensee is requesting the variance because the
proposed action is not in conformance with the approved project
Shoreline Management Plan

(SMP). The SMP does not allow for a boat ramp in conjunction with the
allowable number of community docks at this site. Willard proposes to
reduce the number of allowable boat docks from 48 to 17 along the 2,400
linear feet of shoreline fronting the community and to maintain the
existing boat ramp. In addition, Willard proposes to stabilize 1,500
linear feet of shoreline with rip rap.
    l. Location of Application: The filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First
Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
(866) 208-3676 or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21416 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 12243]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2897-048, 2392-047, 2941-043, 2931-042, 2942-051]

Sappi North America, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed an application for surrender of license for the Saccarappa
Project (P-2897-048) and for amendments to the licenses for the
Mallison Falls (P-2932-047), Little Falls (P-2941-043), Gambo (P-2931-
042), and Dundee (P-2942-051) projects and have prepared a final
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed actions. The projects
are located on the Presumpscot River in Cumberland County, Maine. The
projects do not occupy federal lands.
    The final EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential
environmental effects of the proposed surrender of license and
amendments to licenses, and concludes that the proposed actions, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's website
at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. For further information, contact Jennifer Ambler at
(202) 502-8586.

    Dated: March 26, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06236 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36477-36481]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0522; FRL-8686-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Virginia Major New Source Review for Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing limited approval of a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This
revision pertains to amendments to Virginia's existing new source
review permit program for owners of sources located or locating in
Nonattainment areas which were submitted to EPA on February 12, 2007.
EPA is proposing limited approval of these changes to the nonattainment
new source review program, because while the SIP revision submitted by
the Commonwealth strengthens the SIP, it does not fully meet the
current Federal requirements for the allowable lookback period under
the definition of ``baseline actual emissions''. EPA is also proposing
full approval of a related SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth
on December 16, 2003, pertaining to amendments made to Virginia's
existing nonattainment new source review permit program at that time.
This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). In
a separate action, EPA has addressed changes made by Virginia to its
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) new source review rules
which were previously submitted on October 10, 2006.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0522 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0522, David Campbell, Chief, Permits and
Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, 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-
2007-0522. 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 whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The 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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail 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
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 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. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon McCauley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 16, 2003 and February 12, 2007,
the Commonwealth of Virginia

submitted revisions to its SIP for approval of amendments to Virginia's
existing new source review (NSR) permit program for owners of sources
locating in nonattainment areas.

I. Background

    On December 31, 2002, the U.S. EPA published revisions to the
Federal PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) regulations (67
FR 80186), effective March 3, 2003. These changes to the Federal NSR
regulations were reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 2003
(68 FR 63021) and collectively, these two final actions are called the
``2002 New Source Review (NSR) Reform Rules''.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for
determining the baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-
projected actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply
with plant-wide applicability limits to avoid having a significant
emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR
program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for emissions units
that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude pollution control
projects (PCPs) from the definition of ``physical change or change in
the method of operation.'' The November 7, 2003 notice of final action
added a definition for ``replacement unit'' and clarified an issue
regarding the Plant-wide Applicability Limitation (PALs) baseline
calculation procedures for newly constructed units.
    On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit ruled in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC
Cir. June 24, 2005) that EPA lacked the authority to promulgate the
Clean Unit provisions, and the Court requested that EPA vacate that
portion of the 2002 Federal regulation, codified at 40 CFR 52.21(x), as
contrary to the statute. Also, the Court determined that EPA lacked the
authority to create PCP exceptions from NSR and vacated those parts of
the 1991 and 2002 rules, codified at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(32) and 52.21(z),
as contrary to the statute.
    As stated in the December 31, 2002 ``NSR Reform'' rulemaking, State
and local permitting agencies were required to adopt and submit
revisions to their part 51 permitting programs, implementing the
minimum program elements of that rulemaking no later than January 2,
2006 (67 FR 80240). With this submittal, Virginia requests approval of
program revisions to satisfy this requirement. In addition, Virginia
has updated their stationary source permit regulations in Chapter 50,
Article 4, to conform to the new NSR regulatory program and translated
the Federal NSR requirements into their regulatory text in Chapter 80,
Article 9 in a manner that is consistent with State regulatory
development procedures.
    On February 14, 2007, EPA Region III received a revision request to
the Virginia SIP from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ). The February 14, 2007 SIP revision request consisted of
changes to Legislative Rule 9 VAC 5 Chapter 50 Article 4--Stationary
Sources, 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80 Article 6--Permits for New and Modified
Stationary Sources, and 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80 Article 9--Permits for
Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air
Pollution which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment. These rules were
adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia State Air Pollution Control
Board on June 21, 2006 and became effective September 1, 2006. The
Commonwealth adopted the regulations in order to meet the relevant plan
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

What is being addressed in this document?

    Virginia currently has an EPA-approved NSR program for new and
modified sources. Today, EPA is proposing limited approval of the
Virginia pre-construction permitting program as submitted on February
12, 2007 for facilities located or locating in nonattainment areas.
This revision submittal consists of rules titled ``Chapter 50, Article
4--Stationary Sources'', and ``Chapter 80, Article 9--Permits for
Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air
Pollution Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment'' adopted June 21,
2006 and effective September 1, 2006. Virginia also submitted changes
to 9 VAC Chapter 80 Article 6--Permits for New and Modified Stationary
Sources as part of the SIP revision, however, Article 6 has not
previously been approved as part of the Virginia SIP and EPA will not
be taking any rulemaking action on this portion of the SIP submittal at
this time.
    Additionally, on December 16, 2003, Virginia submitted a revision
to Chapter 80, Article 9 that made a number of changes to comply with
the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, the primary of which was to redefine
the offset ratio requirements to accommodate the requirements of
Subpart I of Part C of Title I of the Act. EPA is proposing full
approval of the December 16, 2003 revision submittal.
    Today's action will revise the previously approved versions of
these rules as approved into the Virginia SIP on April 21, 2000 (65 FR
21315) and September 21, 1999 (64 FR 51047), respectively.
    Copies of the revised Virginia rules and submittal packages, as
well as the Technical Support Document (TSD), can be obtained from the
Docket as discussed in the ``Docket'' Section above. A discussion of
notable Virginia rule changes that are proposed for inclusion into the
SIP are included in the TSD and also summarized below.

What are the program changes that EPA is proposing limited approval?

    In its December 2002 regulatory action, EPA dramatically changed
many aspects of the regulations governing the PSD and nonattainment NSR
programs (together, as ``NSR''), aimed at ``providing much needed
flexibility and regulatory certainty, and at removing barriers and
creating incentives for sources to improve environmental performance
through emissions reductions, pollution prevention, and improved energy
efficiency.'' Virginia accepted the conceptual framework of EPA's NSR
reform revisions but tailored the program to their State-specific
objectives. EPA agrees that Virginia's regulations, while different in
some limited respects, will not prevent companies from benefiting from
most, if not all of the goals of NSR reform. In general, EPA has
concluded that Virginia's regulations, overall, conform to the minimum
program elements in 40 CFR 51.165 despite some variations in their
rules from the federal program. It is EPA's position that every element
of NSR reform is present in Virginia's rules but these elements may be
implemented in a way that allows the Commonwealth more scrutiny with
respect to how NSR applies to a facility. The Virginia NSR regulations
for nonattainment areas, effective September 1, 2006 are being proposed
for limited approval today. The following describes areas within these
regulations that vary from the Federal program.
Notable Variations in Article 9 From the Federal Program
    1. In the EPA regulations, the period used for establishing the
baseline for each pollutant can be different for each pollutant. The
Virginia regulations require that it be the same for all pollutants,
except where extenuating circumstances would allow use of

different baseline periods. This variation is acceptable to EPA.
    2. The EPA regulations do not specify consequences where the owner
determines there is a reasonable possibility that a project that is not
a part of a major modification may result in a significant emissions
increase and does not obtain a permit. The Virginia regulations specify
how the state will act should the owner fail to make an accurate
determination. EPA believes that this variation from the federal rule
has no impact on approvability or the Commonwealth's ability to achieve
the goals of NSR reform and is acceptable to EPA.
    Please note, the Commonwealth will soon be revising this Section of
its regulations to reflect changes made in the EPA final rule dated
December 14, 2007 providing improvements to EPA's New Source Review
program regarding ``reasonable possibility'' in recordkeeping. This
final rule provided an explanation and more detailed criteria to
clarify the ``reasonable possibility'' recordkeeping and reporting
standard of the 2002 New Source Review Reform rule. The improvements
provided in the December 14, 2007 rulemaking were to reflect the
amendments found necessary to respond to the decision of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir.
2005) (New York) which remanded this portion of the December 2002
regulations for EPA to provide an acceptable explanation for its
``reasonable possibility'' standard or to devise an appropriately
supported alternative.
    3. The EPA regulations exclude emission increases that could be
accommodated and are unrelated to the project, including demand growth,
from projected actual emissions. The Virginia regulations included this
exclusion but have been revised in order to clarify the intent of the
provision and ensure consistency in its application. This variation is
acceptable to EPA.
    4. The EPA regulations require owners to develop and maintain
information to support their determination that a given project is not
a part of a major modification that may result in a significant
emissions increase. The Virginia regulations require advance
notification of the availability of the information prior to beginning
actual construction of the project. This variation is acceptable to
EPA.
    5. The EPA regulations establish Plantwide Applicability Limits
(PALs) with a duration of 10 years; the Virginia regulations contain
five-year durations for PALs. This variation is acceptable to EPA.
    6. This SIP revision also includes other non-substantive changes to
Virginia's Nonattainment New Source Review program. There was a need to
update regulatory citations, making consistency revisions to the text
to bring the regulations in the Commonwealth up to date. EPA's analysis
has found that these non-substantative changes do not change any of the
minimum regulatory requirements and are acceptable.
    Once again, the TSD, (located in the Docket), can be reviewed for
an in-depth and full explanation of EPA's regulatory analysis of the
Virginia Nonattainment New Source Review program.

III. Limited Approval

Why is EPA proposing ``limited approval'' versus ``full approval'' of
Virginia's NSR regulations, effective September 1, 2006 for
Nonattainment NSR areas?

    The Clean Air Act does not expressly provide for limited approvals,
therefore EPA is using its gap-filling authority under section 301(a)
of the Act in conjunction with the section 110(k)(3) approval provision
to interpret the Act to provide for this type of limited approval
action. A key aspect of these limited approval actions is that they
encompass the entire rule based on the fact that even with limitations,
the approval of the entire rule will strengthen the Commonwealth's SIP.
The primary advantage to using this limited approval is that it will
make the Commonwealth's revision submittal Federally enforceable and
will increase the SIP's potential to achieve additional reductions.
    The following is an explanation for this limited approval of the
SIP revision by EPA. In Virginia's regulations under 9 VAC 5-80-2010 a
new definition was added to reflect the necessary changes to the
program found in the 2002 Federal NSR Reform rule.
    Virginia's definition for ``baseline actual emissions'' varies from
the Federal definition at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(47) in two ways. First, for
both electric generating units (EGUs) and non-EGUs, Virginia's rule
allows the use of different baselines for different pollutants if the
owner can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State Air Pollution
Control Board (Board) that a different baseline period for a different
pollutant(s) is more appropriate due to extenuating circumstances. This
is acceptable to EPA. However in the second instance, for non-EGUs, the
24-month baseline period must occur within the five-year period
preceding the date the owner begins actual construction or the permit
application is deemed complete, whichever is earlier, unless the Board
allows a different time period that it deems is more representative of
normal source operations. The allowance of a different or an extended
time period by the Board is acceptable as it allows a time period past
the more limiting 5-year period, however, the Commonwealth's
regulations do not further restrict the Board from allowing a time
period which could extend past the 10-year period currently provided in
the Federal NSR Reform rule.
    The Virginia regulations, therefore, meet the general Federal
criteria for expanding the lookback period beyond the old requirement
of the most recent 24-month period, and are thus equivalent to the
Federal requirement. The purpose of an extended lookback is to
establish a period that is most representative of source operation.
Establishment of the most representative operation not only enables
sources to plan effective emissions control strategies, it also
provides Virginia with more accurate information on which to base long-
term air quality planning strategies. The 5-year lookback period can be
seen to be more limiting or at times more restrictive than the Federal
rule. Requiring a 5-year lookback instead of a 10-year lookback may,
however, limit a source's potential to find a higher baseline. This
could in turn restrict a source's ability to emit and is thus
inherently more protective than the EPA regulations. As part of the
February 12, 2007 SIP revision submittal, the Commonwealth provided a
more detailed explanation of the 5-year lookback period.
    Though it was not Virginia's intention to exceed the 10-year
lookback limitation, EPA's decision to propose limited approval is
based the Commonwealth's interpretation of its own regulations as
provided in their Technical Support Document. EPA is relying on this
interpretation of the regulations as noted above and in part, the basis
for our limited approval. Furthermore, EPA would look unfavorably upon
any use of discretion by Virginia that would allow for baselines that
exceed a 10-year lookback period. EPA expects Virginia to correct the
definition at 9 VAC 5-80-2010 by limiting the discretionary lookback
period to 10 years. When Virginia makes this amendment, they will be
eligible for consideration for full approval of its Nonattainment NSR
program found in Article 9.

IV. Full Approval

What is EPA proposing full approval of in this action?

    On December 16, 2003, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a SIP
revision submittal for Chapter 80, Article 9 that made a number of
changes to comply with the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, the primary of
which was to redefine the offset ratio requirements to accommodate the
requirements of subpart I of part C of title I of the Act.
Additionally, administrative permit processing provisions were also
clarified further within this submission. EPA is proposing full
approval of the December 16, 2003 revision submittal.

V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * * '' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Section 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
NSR program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event,
because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and
immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any
impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions
of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In
addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is
likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity
law.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA has determined that the amendments to Virginia's nonattainment
new source review permit program at Articles 4 and 9, as submitted on
February 12, 2007 meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and
the Clean Air Act. This amendment is being proposed as a limited
approval as described in Section III above, as a revision to the
Virginia SIP. EPA is also proposing full approval of changes submitted
to the nonattainment new source review permit program at Article 9, as
submitted on December 16, 2003 and as described in Section IV above as
a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
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 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, this proposed rule for limited approval of the SIP
revision submitted on February 12, 2007 and the full approval of the
SIP revision submitted on December 16, 2003 for facilities located or
locating in nonattainment areas for Virginia nonattainment new source
review 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 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, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 17, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E8-14625 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32622-32623]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13213-003]

Lock 14 Hydro Partners; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major License (5 Megawatts or less).
    b. Project No.: 13213-003.
    c. Date filed: May 16, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Lock 14 Hydro Partners, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Heidelberg Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Kentucky River, near the Town of Heidelberg,
Lee County Kentucky. Lands managed by the Federal government are
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r) .
    h. Applicant Contact: David Brown Kinloch, Lock 14 Hydro Partners,
414 S. Wenzel Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40204,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: July 15, 2012.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.

    n. The Heidelberg Project consists of: (1) An existing concrete
lock and dam; (2) an existing 182-acre reservoir having a storage
capacity of 1,820-acre-feet; (3) a powerhouse integral to the abandoned
lock containing four generating units for a total installed capacity of
2,640 kilowatts; and (4) a 1,000-foot-long, 12.47 kilo-Volt
transmission line. The project is estimated to generate an average of
10,484,000 kilowatt-hours annually. The dam and existing project
facilities are owned by the Kentucky River Authority.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR
800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Notice of Acceptance--July 2012
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--August 2012
Comments on Scoping Document 1--October 2012
Issue Scoping Document 2--January 2013
Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis--January 2013
Commission issues EA, draft EA, or draft EIS--July 2013
Comments on EA or draft EA or draft EIS--August 2013
Commission issues final EA or final EIS--October 2013

    Dated: May 24, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13268 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P