Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

04/23/2008 10:46 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Responses to interagency questions on the Pb RIA

Heidi, quick typo correction in the file I sent yesterday (see attached email):

In the answer to the first question, "from leaded avgas" was left out of the following sentence.  It should read:

"In addition, we do not have cost estimates regarding the control of lead emissions from leaded avgasand we can't assume a priori that these control measures would be either more, or less expensive than point source controls."

Thanks.  Sorry about that.

-- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

04/22/2008 03:02 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Responses to interagency questions on the Pb RIA

Heidi -- we drafted responses to the questions you had forwarded.  Please see the attached.

Thanks.

-- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503; FRL-   ]

RIN- 2060-AO77

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:  Allocation of Essential Use
Allowances for Calendar Year 2009

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  With this action, EPA is allocating essential use allowances
for import and production of Class I ozone-depleting substances for
calendar year 2009.  Essential use allowances enable a person to obtain
controlled Class I ozone depleting substances as part of an exemption to
the regulatory ban on the production and import of these chemicals,
which became effective January 1, 1996.  EPA allocates essential use
allowances for production and import of a specific quantity of Class I
substances solely for the designated essential purpose.  The allocation
in this action is 63.0 metric tons of chlorofluorocarbons for use in
metered dose inhalers for 2009.

DATES:  This final rule is effective [insert date of publication].

ADDRESSES:    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503.  All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.  Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.  This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jennifer Bohman, by regular mail:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division
(6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20460; by courier
service or overnight express:  1301 L Street, N.W., Room 1047A,
Washington D.C., 20005;  by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Basis for Allocating Essential Use Allowances

What are essential use allowances?

Under what authority does EPA allocate essential use allowances?

What is the process for allocating essential use allowances?

Essential Use Allowances for Medical Devices

Response to Comments

Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2009

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Paperwork Reduction Act

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments

Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13211:  Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Congressional Review Act

      Judicial Review

     Effective Date of this Final Rule

I.  Basis for Allocating Essential Use Allowances

A.  What are essential use allowances?

	Essential use allowances are allowances to produce or import certain
ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) in the U.S. for purposes that have
been deemed “essential” by the U.S. Government and by the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol).

	The Montreal Protocol is the international agreement aimed at reducing
and eliminating the production and consumption of ODSs.  Eliminating the
production and consumption of Class I ODSs is accomplished through
adherence to phaseout schedules for specific Class I ODSs which include
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl
chloroform.  As of January 1, 1996, production and import of most Class
I ODSs were phased out in developed countries, including the United
States.  However, the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act (the Act)
provide exemptions that allow for the continued import and/or production
of Class I ODSs for specific uses.  Under the Montreal Protocol,
exemptions may be granted for uses that are determined by the Parties to
be "essential."  Decision IV/25, taken by the Parties to the Protocol in
1992, established criteria for determining whether a specific use should
be approved as essential, and set forth the international process for
making determinations of essentiality.  The criteria for an essential
use, as set forth in paragraph 1 of Decision IV/25, are the following:

	"(a) that a use of a controlled substance should qualify as
‘essential’ only if:

	(i) it is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the
functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects);
and

	(ii) there are no available technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of
environment and health;

	(b) that production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance
for essential uses should be permitted only if:

	(i) all economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the
essential use and any associated emission of the controlled substance;
and

	(ii) the controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity
and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled controlled
substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries’ need for
controlled substances."

B.  Under what authority does EPA allocate essential use allowances?

	Title VI of the Act implements the Montreal Protocol for the United
States.  Section 604(d) of the Act authorizes EPA to allow the
production of limited quantities of Class I ODSs after the phaseout date
for the following essential uses:

	(1)  Methyl chloroform, “solely for use in essential applications
(such as nondestructive testing for metal fatigue and corrosion of
existing airplane engines and airplane parts susceptible to metal
fatigue) for which no safe and effective substitute is available.”
Under section 604(d)(1) of the Act, this exemption was available only
until January 1, 2005.  Prior to that date, EPA issued methyl chloroform
allowances to the U.S. Space Shuttle and Titan Rocket programs.

	(2) Medical devices (as defined in section 601(8) of the Act), “if
such authorization is determined by the Commissioner [of the Food and
Drug Administration], in consultation with the Administrator [of EPA] to
be necessary for use in medical devices.”  EPA issues allowances to
manufacturers of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) that use CFCs as
propellant for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease.

	(3) Aviation safety, for which limited quantities of halon-1211,
halon-1301, and halon-2402 may be produced “if the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with the
Administrator [of EPA] determines that no safe and effective substitute
has been developed and that such authorization is necessary for aviation
safety purposes.”  Neither EPA nor the Parties have ever granted a
request for essential use allowances for halon, because alternatives are
available or because existing quantities of this substance are large
enough to provide for any needs for which alternatives have not yet been
developed.

	An additional essential use exemption under the Montreal Protocol, as
agreed in Decision X/19, is the general exemption for laboratory and
analytical uses.  This exemption is reflected in EPA’s regulations at
40 CFR part 82, subpart A.  While the Act does not specifically provide
for this exemption, EPA has determined that an exemption for essential
laboratory and analytical uses is allowable under the Act as a de
minimis exemption.  The de minimis exemption is addressed in EPA’s
final rule of March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14760-14770).  The Parties to the
Protocol subsequently agreed (Decision XI/15) that the general
laboratory and analytical use exemption does not apply to the following
uses:  testing of oil and grease, and total petroleum hydrocarbons in
water; testing of tar in road-paving materials; and forensic
finger-printing.  EPA incorporated this exemption at Appendix G to
Subpart A of 40 CFR part 82 on February 11, 2002 (67 FR 6352).  In a
December 29, 2005, final rule, EPA extended the general exemption for
laboratory and analytical uses through December 31, 2007 (70 FR 77048),
in accordance with Decision XV/8 of the Parties to the Protocol.  At the
19th Meeting of the Parties in September 2007, the Parties agreed to
extend the global laboratory and analytical use exemption through
December 31, 2011, in Decision XIX/18.  In a December 27, 2007, final
rulemaking EPA took action to (1) extend the laboratory and analytical
use exemption from December 31, 2007, to December 31, 2011, for specific
laboratory uses, (2) apply the laboratory and analytical use exemption
to the production and import of methyl bromide, and (3) eliminate the
testing of organic matter in coal from the laboratory and analytical use
exemption (72 FR 73264).

C.  What is the process for allocating essential use allowances?

	The procedure set out by Decision IV/25 calls for individual Parties to
nominate essential uses and the total amount of ODSs needed for those
essential uses on an annual basis.  The Protocol’s Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) evaluates the nominated essential uses
and makes recommendations to the Parties.  The Parties take the final
decisions on whether to approve a Party’s essential use nomination at
their annual Meeting of the Parties.  This nomination process occurs
approximately two years before the year in which the allowances would be
in effect.  The allowances allocated for 2009 in this final rule were
first nominated by the United States in January 2007.

	For MDIs, EPA requests information from manufacturers about the number
and type of MDIs they plan to produce, as well as the amount of CFCs
necessary for production.  EPA then forwards the information to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), which determines the amount of CFCs
necessary for MDIs in the coming calendar year.  Based on FDA’s
determination, EPA proposes allocations to each eligible entity.  Under
the Act and the Montreal Protocol, EPA may allocate essential use
allowances in quantities that together are less than or equal to the
total amount approved by the Parties.  EPA will not allocate essential
use allowances in amounts higher than the total approved by the Parties.
 For 2009, the Parties authorized the United States to allocate up to
282 metric tons (MT) of CFCs for essential uses.  In a notice of
proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on January 16,
2009 (74 FR 2954), EPA proposed to allocate 63.0 MT of CFCs for the
production of MDIs for the calendar year 2009.  In this final rule, EPA
is allocating 63.0 MT of CFCs for the production of MDIs for calendar
year 2009.

II.  Essential Use Allowances for Medical Devices

	The following is a step-by-step list of actions EPA and FDA have taken
to implement the exemption for medical devices found at section
604(d)(2) of the Act for the 2009 calendar year.

	1.  On January 16, 2008, EPA sent letters to MDI manufacturers
requesting the following information under section 114 of the Act
(“114 letters”):

		a. The MDI product where CFCs will be used.

		b. The number of units of each MDI product produced from 1/1/07 to
12/31/07.

		c. The number of units anticipated to be produced in 2008.

		d. The number of units anticipated to be produced in 2009.

		e. The gross target fill weight per unit (grams).

		f. Total amount of CFCs to be contained in the MDI product for 2009.

		g. The additional amount of CFCs necessary for production.

		h. The total CFC request per MDI product for 2009.

The letters from EPA are available for review in the Air Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503.  The companies requested that their responses be
treated as confidential business information; for this reason, EPA has
placed the responses in the confidential portion of the docket.

	2. At the end of January 2008, as required by 40 CFR 82.13(u), EPA
received annual reporting information from MDI manufacturers that
included such data as the type and quantity of CFCs held at the end of
the year (i.e. stocks of pre-1996 and post-1996 CFCs).  The data
submitted from the MDI manufacturers is available for review in the Air
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503.  The companies requested that their
individual responses be treated as confidential business information;
for this reason, EPA has placed the individual responses in the
confidential portion of the docket.

	3. On February 13, 2008, EPA sent FDA the information MDI manufacturers
provided in response to the 114 letters and information required by 40
CFR 82.13(u) with a letter requesting that FDA make a determination
regarding the amount of CFCs necessary for MDIs for calendar year 2009.
This letter is available for review in Air Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503.

	4.  On April 28, 2008, FDA sent a letter to EPA stating the amount of
CFCs determined by the Commissioner to be necessary for each MDI company
in 2009.  FDA’s letter informed EPA that it had determined that 88.0
MT of CFCs were necessary for use in medical devices in the year 2009.
This letter is available for review in the Air Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503.

	5. On August 12, 2008, FDA sent a letter to EPA revising its April 28,
2008 essential use determination.  FDA’s revised letter informed EPA
that it had determined that 63.0 MT of CFCs were necessary for use in
medical devices for the year 2009.  In its letter, FDA stated that
“The amount of CFCs recommended in our April 28, 2008 letter was based
on information available then, that led to assumptions that are now
outdated.”  This letter is available for review in the Air Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503.

	With respect to the 2009 determination, FDA stated, “FDA’s
determination for the allocation of CFCs is lower than the total amount
requested by sponsors.  In reaching this determination, we took into
account the sponsors’ production of MDIs that used CFCs as a
propellant in 2007, their estimated production in 2008, their estimated
production in 2009, their anticipated essential-use allocations in 2008,
their current (as of December 31, 2007) stockpile levels, and any
intercompany transfers of CFCs.  Finally, FDA based its determination
for 2009 on an estimate of the quantity of CFCs that would allow
manufacturers to have a 12-month stockpile at the end of 2009, in
accordance with paragraph 3 of Decision XVI/12 and paragraph 2 of
Decision XVII/5.”

	The letter stated that in making its determination, FDA made the
following assumptions:

All manufacturers will receive the full essential-use allocation
proposed by EPA for calendar year 2008 (72 FR 32269, June 12, 2007);

All manufacturers will procure the full quantity of CFCs allocated to
them for 2008; and

No bulk CFCs currently held by, or allocated to, any manufacturer will
be exported from the United States.

	EPA has confirmed with FDA that this determination is consistent with
Decision XVII/5, including language on stocks that states that Parties
“shall take into account pre- and post-1996 stocks of controlled
substances as described in paragraph 1(b) of Decision IV/25, such that
no more than a one-year operational supply is maintained by that
manufacturer.”  Allowing manufacturers to maintain up to a one-year
operational supply accounts for unexpected variability in the demand for
MDI products or other unexpected occurrences in the market and therefore
ensures that MDI manufacturers are able to produce their essential use
MDIs.

	For calendar year 2009, FDA’s determination aggregates the amounts of
CFC-11, -12, or -114 being allocated to the MDI manufacturer.  In its
letter FDA stated, “As has generally been our practice, FDA is
aggregating the amounts for CFCs, and is providing recommendations on
the total amounts of CFCs necessary to protect the public health.  FDA
expects manufacturers to maintain an appropriate balance of CFCs
necessary to produce their CFC MDIs.”

	6.  In accordance with FDA’s determination, EPA proposed to allocate
63.0 MT of CFCs for the production of MDIs for the calendar year 2009 in
a proposed rulemaking published on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 2954).

 	7.  In this final rule, EPA is allocating 63.0 MT of CFCs for the
production of MDIs for calendar year 2009.

III.  Response to Comments

EPA received comments from two entities on the proposed rule.

One commenter supported the proposed rule and opposed limiting the use
of ODSs in MDIs.  The commenter noted that lower cost CFC MDIs are a
benefit for low-income individuals.

EPA believes that only a limited amount of production or import of CFCs
for use in MDIs is necessary in 2009.  Section 604 of the Clean Air Act
directs EPA to authorize the production of CFCs for essential MDIs if
FDA, in consultation with EPA, determines such production to be
necessary.  FDA, in consultation with EPA, has determined that 63.0 MT
of CFCs are necessary to meet the demand for 2009 MDI manufacturing.
Therefore, this action allocates 63.0 MT of CFCs for use in MDIs in
2009.

EPA and FDA understand that patients may incur additional costs to
purchase inhalers as the market transitions to CFC-free alternatives,
such as HFA MDIs.  For example, patients covered by medical insurance
may encounter higher co-payments to purchase HFA MDIs, which are brand
name products.  However, patient assistance programs exist to assist
patients with the increased costs.  For low-income patients, these
programs include free and/or discounted medicines.  To assist patients
facing higher co-pays associated with the increased costs of the HFA
MDIs, programs such as coupons and discounted HFA MDIs are being made
available through physicians’ offices, at pharmacies, and at
individual manufacturers’ websites.

In a related rulemaking, FDA responded to a similar comment regarding
the cost of CFC-free alternatives, stating, “Considering the
availability of programs providing low-cost or free prescription drugs
that would allow low-income, elderly, and uninsured individuals to
purchase alternative MDIs, and the availability of physician samples, we
believe that patients will be adequately served by alternative MDIs”
(73 FR 69532).

A second commenter supported the proposed rule but believes that the US
Government should take actions to limit the amount of CFCs needed for
use in MDIs in the future.  The commenter believes that the U.S.
Government should set up procedures or guidelines to encourage MDI
manufacturers to develop CFC-free MDIs.  The commenter also asked
whether the global laboratory and analytical use exemption would extend
to the future use of MDIs.

EPA notes that the transition to ozone-safe alternatives is well
underway and that, for example, the allocation of essential use
allowances for CFC-based MDIs significantly decreased from over 3,000 MT
in 2000 to 63.0 MT in 2009.  In this action, EPA is only allocating
essential use allowances to one manufacturer of CFC-MDIs.

FDA has found the use of ODSs to be essential in a limited number of
medical products, including certain metered dose inhalers for the
treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (see 21
CFR 2.125(e)(1) and (e)(2)).  When a specific medical product meets the
criteria for removal of the essential use designation, FDA initiates
rulemakings that remove the essential use designations for MDIs in a
manner that is protective of public health.  Specifically, FDA published
a final rule in 2008 that removes the essential use designation for
epinephrine used in MDIs as of December 31, 2011 (73 FR 69532).
Further, FDA published a proposed rule in 2007 that proposes removing
the essential use designations for flunisolide, triamcinolone,
metaproterenol, pirbuterol, albuterol and ipratropium in combination,
cromolyn, and nedocromil used in MDIs as of December 31, 2009 (72 FR
32030).

With respect to the comment that EPA should encourage MDI manufacturers
to develop CFC-free MDIs, EPA agrees that that companies that apply for
essential use allocations should demonstrate ongoing research and
development of alternatives to CFC MDIs.  Decision VIII/10, taken in
1997, provides for applicants to submit information on the status of
research and development into alternatives, and Decision XIX/13, taken
in September 2007, provides for applicants to submit related information
describing their progress in transitioning to CFC-free formulations.
Since 1997, EPA has requested that applicants provide this information
with their applications for CFC essential use nominations.  The MDI
manufacturer that is receiving an essential use allocation has submitted
information to EPA pertaining to its research and development efforts.

Finally, the global laboratory and analytical exemption allows the
continued production and import of small amounts of class I ODSs for use
in essential laboratory and analytical methods.  At the 19th Meeting of
the Parties in September 2007, the Parties agreed to extend the global
laboratory and analytical use exemption through December 31, 2011, in
Decision XIX/18.  The use of CFCs in MDIs is not a laboratory or
analytical use.  Therefore, the use of CFCs in MDIs would not qualify
under the global laboratory and analytical use exemption.

IV.  Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2009

With this action, EPA is allocating essential use allowances for
calendar year 2009 to the entity listed in Table 1.  These allowances
are for the production or import of the specified quantity of Class I
controlled substances solely for the specified essential use.

TABLE I. - ESSENTIAL USE ALLOWANCES FOR

CALENDAR YEAR 2009

Company	Chemical	2009 Quantity (metric tons)

(i) Metered Dose Inhalers (for oral inhalation) for Treatment of Asthma
and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Armstrong 	CFC-11 or CFC-12 or CFC-114	63.0

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under Executive Order (EO) 12866   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action”
because it raises novel legal or policy issues.  Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

	EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits related to
this action.  This analysis is contained in the Agency’s Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) for the entire Title VI phaseout program (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Compliance with Section 604 of the Clean Air Act for the Phaseout of
Ozone Depleting Chemicals,” July 1992).  A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
summarized here.  The RIA examined the projected economic costs of a
complete phaseout of consumption of ozone-depleting substances, as well
as the projected benefits of phased reductions in total emissions of
CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances, including essential use CFCs
used for MDIs.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

	This action does not impose any new information collection burden.  The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements included in this action are
already included in an existing information collection burden and this
action does not make any changes that would affect the burden.  However,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations at 40 CFR 82.8(a) under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2060-0170.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of today’s rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that is
primarily engaged in pharmaceutical preparations manufacturing as
defined by NAICS code 325412 with less than 750 employees; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
its field.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 After considering the economic impacts of
today’s rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  In determining whether a rule has a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 USC 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.

	This action will provide an otherwise unavailable benefit to those
companies that are receiving essential use allowances by creating an
exemption to the regulatory phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons.  We have
therefore concluded that today's rule will relieve regulatory burden for
all small entities. EPA solicited comments on the potential impact of
the proposed rule on small entities.  EPA did not receive comments
related to the potential impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal
governments or the private sector.  This action is deregulatory and does
not impose any new requirements on any entities. Therefore, this action
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because this rule
merely allocates essential use exemptions to entities as an exemption to
the ban on production and import of Class I ODSs.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

	Executive Order 13132, titled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
 “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

	This rule does not have federalism implications.  It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

F.  Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

	This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action does
not have tribal implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.  EPA
solicited comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials.  EPA did
not receive any comments from tribal officials on the proposed rule.

G.  Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

	EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under
section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the
regulation.  This rule is not subject to EO 13045 because it implements
Section 604(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act which states that the Agency
shall authorize essential use exemptions should the Food and Drug
Administration determine that such exemptions are necessary.

H.  Executive Order 13211:  Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

	This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy. This rule does not have any adverse energy effects
because it merely allocates essential use allowances to entities
manufacturing metered dose inhalers as an exemption to the ban on
production and import of Class I ODSs.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 ("NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.  This rule does
not involve technical standards.  Therefore, EPA did not consider the
use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J.  Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

	Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.

	EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine whether there
would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from
this rule.  EPA believes, however, that this action affects the level of
environmental protection equally for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or
low-income population.  Any ozone depletion that results from this rule
will impact all affected populations equally, because ozone depletion is
a global environmental problem with environmental and human effects that
are, in general, equally distributed across geographical regions.

K.  Congressional Review Act

	The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  Therefore, EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  This rule is not a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).  This rule will be
effective [insert date of publication].

VI.  Judicial Review

	Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, EPA finds that these regulations
are of national applicability.  Accordingly, judicial review of the
action is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
within sixty days of publication of the action in the Federal Register.
Under section 307(b)(2), the requirements of this rule may not be
challenged later in judicial proceedings brought to enforce those
requirements.

  Effective Date of this Final Rule

	Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) generally
provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they
are published in the Federal Register.  This final rule is issued under
section 307(d) of the CAA, which does not include a 30-day
effective-date period requirement, and which precludes the application
of section 553(d).  CAA section 307(d)(1) (“The provisions of section
553 through 557...of Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in
this subsection, apply to actions to which this subsection applies.”)
EPA is making this final rule effective [insert date of publication],
and believes that this is consistent with the policies underlying APA
section 553(d).  Specifically, APA section 553(d) provides an exception
for any action that grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction.  Because this action grants an exemption to the phaseout of
production and consumption of CFCs, EPA is making this action effective
immediately to ensure continued availability of CFCs for medical
devices.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Methyl
Chloroform, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated:  ________________________________________

______________________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

40 CFR Part 82 is amended as follows:

PART 82—PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1.  The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

	Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601,7671-7671q.

Subpart A—Production and Consumption Controls

2.  Section 82.8 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:

§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances and critical use allowances.

(a) ***

TABLE I. - ESSENTIAL USE ALLOWANCES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2009

Company	Chemical	2009 Quantity (metric tons)

(i) Metered Dose Inhalers (for oral inhalation) for Treatment of Asthma
and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Armstrong	CFC-11 or CFC-12 or CFC-114	63.0

*****

 “Consumption” is defined as the amount of a substance produced in
the United States, plus the amount imported into the United States,
minus the amount exported to Parties to the Montreal Protocol (see
Section 601(6) of the Clean Air Act).

  Class I ozone-depleting substances are listed at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart A, appendix A.

 See Section 614(b) of the Act.  EPA’s regulations implementing the
essential use provisions of the Act and the Protocol are located in 40
CFR part 82.

 PAGE

  PAGE   19

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:  Allocation of Essential Use
Allowances for Calendar Year 2009 (Page 22 of 23)


[Federal Register: February 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 21)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5205-5211]
[DOCID:fr01fe06-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0012; FRL-8027-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Minnesota:
Alternative Public Participation Process

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting comment on the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's (MPCA's) use of informing the public of upcoming rulemakings
and public hearings via the internet as opposed to the past practice of
using the newspaper or some other widely accessible printed media.
Comments

received may impact EPA's approval of the following requests made by
the MPCA.
    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that will establish, pursuant to regulations
on public hearings, an alternative public participation process for
certain SIP revisions. On December 7, 2005, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a request to change certain procedures
involving the public hearing and notification process as it applies to
SIPs. Minnesota held a public hearing on this SIP revision request on
November 17, 2005. In its request, the MPCA has identified a number of
types of SIP revisions that are noncontroversial and for which the
public has historically shown little or no interest. For this limited
number of SIP revisions, the MPCA would, if approved, offer the
opportunity for a public hearing, but would not hold a hearing if one
was not requested. The EPA agrees that the SIP types that have been
identified by the MPCA have historically been noncontroversial and that
offering the public the opportunity to request a public hearing rather
than holding one automatically does not limit or curtail the public
participation process.
    Also, EPA is proposing to approve, pursuant to regulations on
public hearings, a revision to the Minnesota SIP that provides that SIP
revisions for which a public hearing was held at the time of the MPCA
rulemaking, and where such public hearing met all the criteria
necessary for a SIP public hearing, including, as discussed in this
proposal, effective electronic notice, and the public was notified that
the rule would be submitted as a SIP revision, no separate public
hearing for SIP purposes would be held. MPCA included this revision to
the Minnesota SIP in its December 7, 2005 request to EPA to revise
certain provisions involving the SIP public hearing and notification
process, and, correspondingly, included this revision in the public
hearing which MPCA held on November 17, 2005. EPA agrees that a public
hearing held at the time of the MPCA rulemaking, which meets the
criteria for a SIP public hearing, including notice requirements,
precludes the need for a separate public hearing for SIP purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0012, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0012. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://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. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant 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'' or
``us'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. General Information.
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
    A. Automatic Public Hearing Is Not Necessary Because SIP
Revision Is Either Nonsubstantive or Noncontroversial
    B. Equivalent Hearing to a Public Hearing
    C. Table Summarizing Proposed Alternative Public Hearing
Processes
    D. Use of Internet Notification of Upcoming Rulemakings and
Public Hearings Versus Using Newspapers
    E. Summary
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to anyone who would participate in the public
rulemaking process in Minnesota. This proposal may be of particular
interest to parties who prefer notification of MPCA rulemakings and
hearings through printed media, such as the newspaper, versus
electronic media such as postings on the internet.
    This proposal does not seek to limit the public participation
process; rather, it is an effort to eliminate unnecessary public
hearings and save MPCA time and resources. MPCA has identified a number
of different types of SIP revisions that have received little, if any,
public interest in the past and, when public hearings were held, no one

attended these hearings. These public hearings are, therefore, viewed
as consuming both valuable time and resources that the MPCA could
utilize better on other projects. For these types of revisions, the
state has revised its procedures to provide that public hearings will
not automatically be held. Rather, the public will be provided the
opportunity to request a public hearing and a hearing will be held only
if requested. This revision regarding public hearings will not affect
the public's ability to submit written comments on any SIP revision.
    Also, MPCA has requested that when a public hearing that meets
specific requirements has already been held in the state that this
would be found to be the equivalent of a SIP public hearing.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Additional Instructions for Specific Comments. EPA is soliciting
specific comments on MPCA's use of the internet to inform the public of
upcoming rulemakings and public hearings. In the past, before computer
usage was as widespread as it is today, states would inform the public
of upcoming public hearings by placing advertisements in the newspaper.
Now that the use of computers and the internet is considered
commonplace, we would like feedback on whether it is appropriate to no
longer advertise upcoming rulemakings and public hearings in a printed
format and to shift to an all electronic notification through use of
internet publication. Additional information regarding these practices
will follow in this notice. It is important we receive comments on this
aspect of proposal because it may impact our proposed approval of the
alternative public hearing processes submitted by MPCA.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is proposing to, under 40 CFR 51.102(g), approve an alternative
public participation process that would apply to certain SIP revisions
in the state of Minnesota. The goal of this new process is to preserve
time and resources of the MPCA by eliminating automatic public hearings
for the types of SIP revisions that have historically generated little,
if any, public interest. This process, however, preserves the
opportunity for the public to request a SIP public hearing.
    Currently, 40 CFR 51.102 and Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) and
110(l) require the state to hold public hearings for all SIP revisions
prior to submitting such revisions to EPA for approval. This is true
for all SIPs regardless of how minor the action or how little public
interest has been expressed on the SIP revision under consideration.
Under federal regulations found at 40 CFR 51.102(g)(2), alternative
procedures may be approved provided they still ensure adequate public
notification and public participation.
    On December 7, 2005, the MPCA requested that its SIP be amended to
incorporate alternative public participation procedures into the
Minnesota SIP. The MPCA has identified limited types of SIP revisions
that, historically, have received little, if any, public interest and
when public hearings have been held for these SIP revisions, no one
attended. For these types of SIP revisions, MPCA would instead offer
the opportunity for a public hearing. Under this alternative method of
public participation, only one request would be necessary and a public
hearing would be held.
    MPCA has also requested that when a state public hearing has been
held on an MPCA rulemaking, that can be considered the equivalent of a
SIP public hearing, when measured against the criteria for a SIP public
hearing as provided at 40 CFR 51.102(d)-(f) [see the discussion on the
use of electronic notification of rulmakings and public hearing in
section II. C. of this notice], and where the public was notified that
such rule would be submitted as a SIP revision, then a public hearing
for SIP purposes only need not be held.
    Included in MPCA's SIP amendment request were two exhibits. Exhibit
1 is a table describing the various types of SIP submittals that are
made by the state. In the table, each SIP revision category is
described and a reason is given why a public hearing should
automatically be held or why an automatic public hearing is not
necessary but the opportunity to request a public hearing still exists.
The phrase ``Administrative Permit Amendments'' is used in Exhibit 1
and Exhibit 2 identifies how that phrase is defined by Minnesota Rules.
    While Exhibit 1 describes all of the various SIP revisions that
MPCA might make, for the purposes of this rulemaking we will discuss
only: (1) the categories for which MPCA is requesting that public
hearings would be held only if requested and (2) the category for which
MPCA believes the equivalent of a SIP public hearing has already been
held which obviates the need for a public hearing for SIP purposes
only.

A. Automatic Public Hearing Is Not Necessary Because SIP Revision Is
Either Nonsubstantive or Noncontroversial

    In these instances, MPCA indicates that the public will have the
opportunity to request a public hearing. The MPCA will schedule a
tentative hearing, but stating in the public notice document (which is
published in the Minnesota State Register in an online format only)
that the hearing will not be held if there are no affirmative requests
for it to be held.
    1. Purely Administrative Changes--MPCA gives the examples of
correcting typographical or grammatical errors. There is a presumption
that this is not a change that would be of public concern as it is not
substantive.

    2. De minimis change to a ``secondary'' compliance requirement--
Here, MPCA defines ``secondary'' requirement as a requirement that
supports a ``primary'' requirement for a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). ``Primary'' requirements include, but are not limited
to, restrictions such as an emission limit or fuel usage limit. An
example of de minimis change to a ``secondary'' requirement could
include, a change to a monitoring or testing method that is within the
scope of the method and does not adversely impact the accuracy or
precision of the method (e.g., increasing sample volume above the
minimum required by the method in order to ensure an adequate detection
limit is achieved.) There is a presumption of no public interest in
these types of SIP revisions because the changes described here are
``de minimis'' and should not adversely affect compliance with the
primary NAAQS.
    3. Changes categorized as ``administrative amendments'' under
MPCA's operating permit rules--MPCA included, as Exhibit 2, the portion
of the Minnesota Rules that define ``administrative amendments.'' Minn.
R. 7077.1400, subp. 1, as reproduced below, defines the term
``administrative amendments'' as including the following actions:
     An amendment to correct a typographical error;
     An amendment to change the name, mailing address, or
telephone number of any person identified in the permit, or that
reflects a similar minor administrative change at the permitted
facility. A change in the stationary source's location of operation is
not covered by this item;
     An amendment requiring the permittee to comply with
additional, more frequent, or expanded, testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements;
     An amendment to eliminate monitoring, recordkeeping, or
reporting requirements if: (1) The requirements are rendered
meaningless because the only emissions to which the requirements apply
will no longer occur; (2) the change is to eliminate one validated
reference test method for a pollutant and source category in order to
add another; (3) the requirements are redundant to or less strict than
other existing requirements; (4) the requirements are technically
incorrect and their elimination does not affect the accuracy of the
data generated or of the monitoring information recorded or reported;
or, (5) the piece of equipment to which the monitoring, record keeping,
or reporting requirement applies no longer exists or has been
permanently disabled from use at the stationary source.
     An amendment reflecting a change in ownership or
operational control of a stationary source where the agency determines
that no other change in the permit is necessary, provided that a
written agreement containing a specific date for transfer of permit
responsibility, coverage, and liability between the current and new
permittee has been submitted to the agency;
     An amendment to incorporate into a permit the requirements
from preconstruction review permits issued by the agency, incorporate
into a permit the requirements from standards adopted under Code of
Federal Regulations, title 40, part 63, as amended (National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories), or to
lower the plantwide emission limits in permits with Plantwide
Applicability Limits to reflect the impact of standards adopted under
Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 63, as amended;
     An amendment to clarify the meaning of a permit term;
     An amendment to extend a deadline in a permit by no more
than 120 days, provided that the agency may only extend a deadline
established by an applicable requirement described in part 7007.0100,
subpart 7, items A to K, if the agency has been delegated authority to
make such extensions by the administrator. Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, the agency may do an administrative amendment to extend a
testing deadline in a permit up to 365 days if the agency finds that
the extension is needed to allow the permittee to test at worst case
conditions as required by part 7017.2025, subpart 2;
     An amendment to remove any condition from a permit which
was based on an applicable requirement that has been repealed, but only
if the permit condition: (1) Is neither required nor replaced by
another applicable requirement; and, (2) was not established for a
specific facility to protect human health and the environment, to
prevent pollution, as a mitigation measure in an environmental impact
statement, or to obtain a negative declaration in an environmental
assessment worksheet;
     An amendment to correct or update a citation to an
applicable requirement where the corresponding permit condition is not
changed; and,
     An amendment to include operating conditions that ensure
that waste combustors emit mercury at less than 50 percent of the
applicable standard.
    These ``administrative amendments'' either do not substantively
change the SIP or they actually strengthen the SIP (e.g., require more
frequent testing, reporting or recordkeeping) and are not expected to
generate public interest.
    4. Unit or plant permanently shut down--In this case, all SIP
conditions have become obsolete because the unit or facility no longer
exists and these SIP conditions no longer apply. We agree that if the
unit or facility no longer exists, an automatic public hearing is not
necessary to remove those SIP conditions that no longer apply.
    5. Non-controversial update to an existing maintenance plan--This
would be a ``technical change'' (e.g., 10-year update to a maintenance
plan) with no substantive compliance or inventory changes.
    6. Incorporation of federal rule by reference into state rule--In
these cases, the federal rules have already been through public notice
and comment. Also, the state's incorporation by reference is likely to
be in response to a Federal Register noticed delegation or a memorandum
of agreement that dictates that MPCA must incorporate the rule in order
to administer the federal program.
    7. Rulemaking where a state public hearing has been offered but no
one was interested--For some rulemakings, MPCA will hold non-mandatory
meetings to discuss the merits of the rulemaking and to invite comment
on draft or proposed rule language when ready. At the commencement of
every rulemaking, state law requires MPCA to publish a Notice of
Request for Comments (the State Register is currently published online
only). This occurs before a rule has been drafted and is intended to
inform potentially interested persons of the likely subject matter of
the rule that the MPCA is considering. The Notice is published in the
State Register (which is available only via the Internet), posted on
the MPCA's website and physically mailed to all persons that have
previously requested to be kept informed of such proposals. The Notice
does not specify meeting dates but invites public participation
generally.
    During the public participation process, requests for a state
public hearing (different than a SIP public hearing) can be made. If
any request for a state public hearing is made, then MPCA has committed
to hold a public hearing on the SIP because public interest has been
expressed. However, if no requests for a state public hearing are made
or if such requests are withdrawn,

then a SIP public hearing will only be held if requested.

B. Equivalent Hearing to a Public Hearing

    In these instances, a public hearing that would meet the criteria
in 40 CFR 51.102(d)-(f) for a SIP public hearing [see the discussion on
the use of electronic notification of rulmakings and public hearing in
section II.C. of this notice] has already been held as part of the
procedure for some other MPCA action. Minnesota has requested that we
approve this process under 40 CFR 51.102(g) as equivalent to the public
hearing requirement in 40 CFR 51.102. In the past, the state has held
separate SIP public hearings to satisfy the requirements of the Clean
Air Act, specifically noting that the materials available for the
public to comment on would be submitted for inclusion in the SIP. MPCA
has noted that in the future if a state public hearing will be held,
MPCA will include language in rule proposal notices that specifies
which rule changes will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. If this
is done, the state public hearing would also serve as the SIP public
hearing.

C. Table Summarizing Proposed Alternative Public Hearing Processes

    Below is a table summarizing the hearing procedures for SIP
submittals for the state of Minnesota under this new process.

                                           Summary Table of SIP Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Category                                     Public participation on process
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Purely administrative--e.g., correction of           Opportunity to request hearing.
 typographical or grammatical error.
(2) De minimis change to a ``secondary'' compliance      Opportunity to request hearing.
 requirement. ``Secondary'' means that the requirement
 supports a primary requirement NAAQS related
 restriction such as an emission limit or fuel usage
 limit.
(3) Changes categorized as ``administrative              Opportunity to request hearing.
 amendments'' under MPCA's operating permit rules (see
 Exhibit 2; Minn. R. 7007.1400) and see 40 CFR Sec.
 70.7(d)(3)).
(4) Unit or plant permanently shut down--all SIP         Opportunity to request hearing.
 conditions have become obsolete (e.g., Continental
 Nitrogen--no longer operates the boilers that were the
 only regulated units in its Admin Order).
(5) Addition or modification of emission unit to         Mandatory SIP hearing.
 facility with SIP conditions with no overall increase
 in emissions. [Amendment of a Permit or Administrative
 Order that is part of SIP].
(6) Addition or modification of emission unit to         Mandatory SIP hearing.
 facility with SIP conditions with overall increase in
 emissions. [Involves amendment of a Permit or
 Administrative Order that is part of SIP].
(7a) Non-controversial update to an existing             Opportunity to request hearing.
 maintenance plan that is a ``technical change;'' or 10-
 year update to maintenance plan with no substantive
 compliance or inventory changes.
(7b) Update to an existing maintenance plan that         Mandatory SIP hearing.
 changes the compliance scheme, including 10-year
 update with compliance or inventory changes. Also any
 update that involves a known controversy.
(8) Redesignation requests.............................  Mandatory SIP hearing.
(9) New Plans (e.g., PM2.5, Ozone, Regional Haze)......  Mandatory SIP hearing.
(10a) Rulemaking that has been the subject of a formal   State hearing would serve as the SIP public hearing.
 state public hearing. Minnesota will include language
 in rule proposal notices that specifies which rule
 changes will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
 [Formal public hearing before an ALJ--Minn. Stat. Sec.
   14.14].
(10b) Rulemaking where non-mandatory stakeholder         Opportunity to request hearing.
 meetings are convened and the MPCA receives no
 requests for a formal public hearing on the proposed
 rule (or receives requests but all requests are
 withdrawn in a timely manner).
(10c) Rulemaking where non-mandatory stakeholder         Mandatory SIP hearing.
 meetings are convened and the MPCA receives one or
 more requests for a formal public hearing on the
 proposed rule (and if requests withdrawn, not done so
 in time for cancellation of the public hearing).
(10d) Rulemaking where stakeholder meetings were not     Mandatory SIP hearing.
 held or where meetings were too informal or selective.
 If the rule is potentially of interest in the SIP
 context but for some reason the type of meeting in
 11(b) was not held, a SIP-specific meeting should be
 held. This might occur if response to the rulemaking
 was minimal but the rule is part of a larger SIP plan
 and in that context may have special significance to a
 specific state action.
(11) Incorporation of federal rule by reference into     Opportunity to request hearing.
 state rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Use of Internet Notification of Upcoming Rulemakings and Public
Hearings Versus Using Newspapers

    EPA is particularly interested in your opinion on the use of
electronic notification, via the internet, of rulemakings and public
hearings. 40 CFR 51.102(d)-(f) describe the specific requirements
states must meet in conducting public hearings for SIP submittals.
However, 40 CFR 51.102(g) provides that alternative procedures may be
approved provided they still ensure adequate public notification and
public participation. The following provisions of 40 CFR 51.102(d) may
be impacted by the use of electronic notice:
    (d) Any hearing required by paragraph (a) of this section will be
held only after reasonable notice, which will be considered to include,
at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing(s):
    (1) Notice given to the public by prominent advertisement in the
area affected announcing the date(s), time(s), and place(s) of such
hearing(s);
    (2) Availability of each proposed plan or revision for public
inspection in at least one location in each region to which it will
apply, and the availability of each compliance schedule for public
inspection in at least one location in the region in which the affected
source is located.
    Currently, the MPCA does not use printed media to inform the
general public of upcoming rulemakings or public hearings. This is
different from the more common and accepted practice of states
publishing notices in newspapers, or other widely available printed
media, in the area affected by the rulemaking. In the past, the MPCA
would use the newspaper and the State Register as a means of publishing
such public notices. MPCA has discontinued using newspaper notices and,
as of July 1, 2004, the Minnesota State Register is no longer printed
in a hardcopy format and can only be accessed on the internet. The
Minnesota State Register does offer an additional tailored subscription
service but there is a $180 annual fee associated with this service.
Access to the Minnesota State Register is otherwise free assuming a
person already has access to the internet.

    At the beginning of the rulemaking process, MPCA will publish a
Notice of Request for Comments in the Minnesota State Register which is
only available online. At this point in time, a rule or rule language
has not yet been drafted and the Notice of Request for Comments serves
to inform potentially interested parties of the likely subject matter
of the rule that MPCA is considering. This notice also appears on the
MPCA's website and notification is also mailed to those parties that
have expressed interest in rulemakings of this type. This initial
notice helps generate a more extensive list of interested parties than
the MPCA may already have. In many cases the MPCA will invite these
parties to meetings to discuss the merits of MPCA's rulemaking and to
comment on draft or proposed rule language when ready.
    In past practice, the MPCA would have published these notices in
the Minnesota State Register when it was in print and the Minnesota
State Register was available at any public library. Copies of draft or
proposed rule language would be available at MPCA offices.
    It is MPCA's current practice to then publish a Notice of Intent to
Adopt online in the State Register. It is at this point the rule, as
well as a detailed statement of basis, is now made available on the
MPCA's Web site for public review and comment.
    The argument can be made that, because our society is now highly
computerized, making all of these documents available electronically is
as accessible to the public, if not more so, than it was in the past
when these documents were actually printed. For example, in the past if
someone was interested in environmental rules he or she could go to the
library to read the State Register. Now that same person can go to the
same library and access the State Register online to view the same type
of information once carried in the printed version of the Minnesota
State Register. Since the use of home computers and access to the
internet is widespread, a person can now access the Minnesota State
Register from home whether they live in Minnesota or not.
    We would like your comments on whether electronic notification of
upcoming rulemakings and public hearings is an acceptable alternative
to printed notice which ensures public notice and participation. It is
important for us to hear your comments now as we will consider all of
them before rendering a final decision on this matter and we will not
be reproposing on this in the future.

E. Summary

    In summary, we are proposing to approve under 40 CFR 51.102(g)
MPCA's request to allow the above-identified types of SIP revisions to
forego automatic public hearings. Instead the public would be offered
the opportunity to request a public hearing on these SIP revisions.
Approval of this alternative public participation process is allowed
under the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 51 at 51.102(g). We
believe that the requirements found in 40 CFR 51.102(g) have been met.
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Clean Air Act require public
hearings on all SIP revisions before they are submitted to the EPA. We
believe that the process that MPCA has submitted for approval preserves
the opportunity for the public to request the same public hearing and
does not curtail the public participation process. Additionally, where
MPCA provides a state public hearing that meets the requirements of
51.102(d)-(f), including effective electronic notice [see the
discussion on the use of electronic notification of rulemakings and
public hearing in section II. C. of this notice], and notifies the
public that the rule changes will be submitted as a SIP revision, then
such process is consistent with 40 CFR 51.102 and can be approved under
40 CFR 51.102(g). We are also soliciting specific comments on the use
of electronic notice of MPCA rulemakings and hearings. Public comments
on the use of electronic notice of hearings and rulemakings may impact
the EPA's approval of the proposed alternative public hearing
processes.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations.

    Dated: January 19, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-1367 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 63233-63235]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63056; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Fee
Schedule

October 6, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 30, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities'') proposes to amend the NYSE Arca
Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the
``Schedule''). While changes to the Schedule pursuant to this proposal
will be effective on filing, the changes will become operative on
October 1, 2010. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Effective October 1, 2010, the Exchange proposes to amend the
Schedule to modify the structure of the transaction credits it provides
to Lead Market Makers (``LMMs'') for providing displayed liquidity in
the NYSE Arca marketplace primary listed securities in which they are
registered as the LMM. Currently, an LMM receives a rebate of $0.004
per share for execution of orders that provide displayed liquidity in
such a security, regardless of the trading volume in the security. The
Exchange is proposing to replace this with a tiered rebate structure
that is based on the consolidated average daily volume (``CADV'') of
the security in the previous month. Specifically, the transaction
credits under the new structure would be as follows:
     $0.0035 per share for orders that provide displayed
liquidity in securities that have a CADV in the previous month greater
than 5 million shares
     $0.004 per share for orders that provide displayed
liquidity in securities that have a CADV in the previous month of
between 1 million and 5 million shares inclusive
     $0.0045 per share for orders that provide displayed
liquidity in securities that have a CADV in the previous month of less
than 1 million shares
    In addition, for each rate level of trade related fees in the
Schedule, the Exchange proposes to institute a fee of $0.0005 per share
for orders executed in the Opening Auction or Market Order Auction, as
those terms are defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35. The fee will
be applicable to Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities, and will be
capped at $10,000 per month per Equity Trading Permit ID.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to change the pricing for Mid-
Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders. Currently the rebate for MPL
Orders that provide liquidity, as well as the fee for orders that take
liquidity, is $0.0010 in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities. Under
this proposal, MPL orders will receive a rebate of $0.0015 for orders
that provide liquidity and be charged a fee of $0.0025 for orders that
take liquidity in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities. These changes
apply to all pricing levels.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to assess monthly fees for the use
of all ports that provide connectivity to its equity trading systems. A
number of other markets already charge such fees, but the Exchange has
not previously done so.
    The level of activity with respect to a particular port will not
affect the assessment of monthly fees, so even if a particular port
that is available to a participant is not used, the participant will
still be billed for that port. The monthly fee for ports will be $100
per pair per month up to five pairs, then $500 for each additional five
pairs. For example, the fee for seven pairs of ports will be $1,000 per
month. Billing for ports will be based on the number of ports on the
third business day prior to the end of the month.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\4\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposal does not constitute an inequitable allocation of
fees, as all similarly situated member organizations and other market
participants will be charged the same amount and access to the
Exchange's market is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). [sic]
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed on its members by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-87 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-87. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange.\8\ All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from

submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2010-87 and should be submitted on or before November 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25746 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61754-61755]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-13-000.
    Applicants: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)+(g): Revisions to SOC
and Statement of Effective Rates to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/7/17.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>93.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/17.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/18.

    Docket Number: PR17-57-002.
    Applicants: Houston Pipe Line Company LP.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2),(: 2nd Amended Rate
Election of Houston Pipe Line Company LP Effective 11/01/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/8/17.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>66.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-252-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 121517 Negotiated Rates--
Mercuria Energy America, Inc. H-7540-89 to be effective 12/14/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171215-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-253-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Bayway Lateral Project--
Negotiated Rates eff 1-1-2018 to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171215-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 18, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28200 Filed 12-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27424-27425]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD16-11-000]

St. Charles Mesa Water District; Notice of Preliminary
Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and
Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On April 26, 2016, the St. Charles Mesa Water District (SCMWD)
filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower
facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as
amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of
2013 (HREA). The proposed Hydro-Electric Station at the SCMWD Treatment
Plant Project would have an installed capacity of 40 kilowatts (kW),
and would be located adjacent to the outlet of an existing raw water
supply pipeline at the SCMWD's existing raw water storage reservoir.
The project would be located near Pueblo, in Pueblo County, Colorado.
    Applicant Contact: David Simpson, District Manager, 1397 Aspen
Road, Pueblo, CO 81006, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse, approximately 20 feet
by 62 feet, along an existing 18-inch-diameter raw water supply
pipeline; (2) three turbine/generating units, two units with installed
capacities of 10 kW each and one unit with an installed capacity of 20
kW, for a total installed capacity of 40 kW, and a potential future
fourth unit with an installed capacity of 20 kW; (3) three short intake
pipes with diameters of 8 inches, 10 inches, and 12 inches, and a
potential future 12-inch-diameter intake pipe; (4) three short
discharge pipes with diameters of 8 inches, 10 inches, and 12 inches,
and a potential future 12-inch-diameter discharge pipe; and (5)
appurtenant facilities.
    The proposed project would have a total installed capacity of 40
kW.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Statutory provision              Description       Satisfies (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by   The conduit the                      Y
 HREA.                            facility uses is a
                                  tunnel, canal,
                                  pipeline, aqueduct,
                                  flume, ditch, or
                                  similar manmade water
                                  conveyance that is
                                  operated for the
                                  distribution of water
                                  for agricultural,
                                  municipal, or
                                  industrial
                                  consumption and not
                                  primarily for the
                                  generation of
                                  electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended   The facility is                      Y
 by HREA.                         constructed,
                                  operated, or
                                  maintained for the
                                  generation of
                                  electric power and
                                  uses for such
                                  generation only the
                                  hydroelectric
                                  potential of a non-
                                  federally owned
                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended  The facility has an                  Y
 by HREA.                         installed capacity
                                  that does not exceed
                                  5 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as         On or before August 9,               Y
 amended by HREA.                 2013, the facility is
                                  not licensed, or
                                  exempted from the
                                  licensing
                                  requirements of Part
                                  I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed addition of the
hydroelectric project along the existing raw water supply pipeline will
not alter its primary purpose of supplying water to the water treatment
plant's storage reservoir. Therefore, based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is
not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified

deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at 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>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD16-11) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 29, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10673 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P