[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27041-27043]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11322]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3095-001.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): Amendment to Section 205 Tariff
Filing 4-29-2011 to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5452.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3430-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.17(b): Amendment to Second WestConnect Participation Agreement
Filing to be effective 7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5373
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3471-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operative,
Inc., MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: MidAmerican-CIPCO WDS SA
2334 to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5344.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3472-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operative,
Inc., MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: MidAmerican-IPL WDS SA 2335
to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5345.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3473-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits tariff filing
per 35.12: FPL and GTC Rate Schedule FERC No. 321 to be effective 6/28/
2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5346.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3474-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 1313R3 Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company NITSA NOA to
be effective 4/1/2011.

    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5347.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3475-000.
    Applicants: Bangor Hydro Electric Company, ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Bangor Hydro Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: BHE New LSA Agreements and Notice of Cancellation
in Docket ER10-111-000 to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5348.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3476-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NiMo NYPA Agreement No. 1743 to be
effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5349.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3477-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 04-29-11 Att HH to be
effective 6/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5414.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3478-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 1166R13 Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority NITSA NOA
to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5439.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3479-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: LGIA Among NYISO, Con Edison, and
Hudson Transmission Partners to be effective 4/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5443.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3480-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(1): Request for Change in Rates to
Distribution Cooperative Members-Owners to be effective 7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5507.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3481-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: RTSA Baseline Corrections to be effective 5/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5512.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3482-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Company submits tariff filing per 35.15:
Termination of Revised Service Agreement for Imnaha to be effective 5/
2/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5543.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3483-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: May 2011 Membership Filing to be
effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5546.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-31-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: Application of DU Resources Group, Inc. for authority
to issue securities in connection with 401(k) plan.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5584.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ES11-32-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Application of Northern Indiana Public Service Company
for Authorization Under Section 204(a) of the FPA to Issue Short-Term
Debt.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5589.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Generation, LLC.
    Description: Land Acquisition Report (1Q 2011) of Niagara
Generation, LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC.
    Description: Site Acquisition Report of Eagle Creek Hydro Power,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5406.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: AEE2, L.L.C., AES Alamitos, LLC, AES Armenia Mountain
Wind, LLC, AES Creative Resources, L.P., AES Eastern Energy, L.P., AES
Energy Storage, LLC, AES ES Westover, LLC, AES Huntington Beach,
L.L.C., AES Ironwood, L.L.C., AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, AES Red Oak,
L.L.C., AES Redondo Beach, L.L.C., Condo Wind Power, LLC, Mountain View
Power Partners, LLC, Mountain View Power Partners, IV, LLC,
Indianapolis Power & Light Company.
    Description: Report of Site Acquisition of The AES Corporation.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5564.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: East Coast Power Linden Holding, LLC, Cogen
Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., Fox Energy Company, LLC, Birchwood
Power Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power Company, LLC, EFS Parlin
Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Site Acquisition Report of The GE Companies.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5583.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: Arthur Kill Power LLC, Astoria Gas Turbine Power, LLC,
Avenal Park LLC, Bayou Cove Peaking Power LLC, Big Cajun I Peaking
Power LLC, Cabrillo Power I, LLC, Cabrillo Power II LLC, Conemaugh
Power LLC, Connecticut Jet Power LLC, Cottonwood Energy LP, Devon Power
LLC, Dunkirk Power LLC, El Segundo Power, LLC, El Segundo Power II,
LLC, GenConn Devon

LLC, GenConn Energy LLC, GenGonn Middletown LLC, Green Mountain Energy
Company, Huntley Power LLC, Indian River Power LLC, Keystone Power LLC,
Long Beach Generation LLC, Long Beach Peakers, LLC, Louisiana
Generating LLC, Middletown Power LLC, Montville Power LLC, NEO
Freehold-Gen LLC, Norwalk Power LLC, NRG Energy Center Dover LLC, NRG
Energy Center Paxton LLC, NRG New Jersey Energy Sales LLC, NRG Power
Marketing LLC, NRG Rockford LLC, NRG Rockford II LLC, NRG Solar Blythe
LLC, NRG Sterlington Power LLC, Oswego Harbor Power LLC, Saguaro Power
Company, A Limited Partnership, Sand Drag LLC, Somerset Power LLC, Sun
City Project LLC, Vienna Power LLC.
    Description: Motion of NRG Power Marketing LLC et al., See Appendix
A for a list of all Public Utilities and MBR Docket Numbers)Order 697-C
Compliance Filing Regarding Site Control.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110429-5588.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 02, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11322 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19935-19941]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08405]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0254; FRL-9926-00-Region 8]

Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate
Matter Standards for the Libby, Montana Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make
two separate and independent determinations regarding the Libby,
Montana nonattainment area for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Libby nonattainment area
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, April 2010. This proposed determination is based on
quality-assured and certified ambient air quality data for the 2007-
2009 monitoring period. Second, EPA is proposing that the Libby
nonattainment area has continued to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, based on quality-assured and certified ambient
air quality data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. Based on the
second determination, EPA also proposes to suspend certain
nonattainment area planning obligations. These determinations do not
constitute a redesignation to attainment. The Libby nonattainment area
will remain designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Libby
nonattainment area meets the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for
redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan.
These proposed actions are being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2014-0254, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2014-0254. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be

able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to
Section I. General Information 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 Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 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:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

A. The PM2.5 NAAQS

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established a health-based
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations (``the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS'' or ``the
1997 annual standard''). At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (the ``1997 24-hour standard''). See 40 CFR
50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations (the ``2006 24-hour standard'').
    On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA lowered the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA retained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 secondary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also retained the existing standards for
coarse particulate pollution (PM10). This rulemaking action
proposes determinations solely for the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard. It does not address the 1997 or 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards or the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS.

B. The Libby Nonattainment Area

    On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA promulgated our air quality
designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 2001-2003. These designations became
effective on April 5, 2005. The Libby nonattainment area is comprised
of the City of Libby within Lincoln County. See 40 CFR 81.327.
    In response, the State of Montana submitted State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions on June 26, 2006 and March 26, 2008 intended to
meet planning requirements for the Libby nonattainment area. In
particular, based on section 172(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and the April 5,
2005 effective date of designation as nonattainment, the attainment
plan identified April 2010 as the applicable attainment date.\1\ The
state's attainment plan accordingly showed attainment by that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the attainment date for a
nonattainment area is ``the date by which attainment can be achieved
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from
the date such area was designated nonattainment,'' except that EPA
may extend the attainment date as appropriate ``for a period no
greater than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment,
considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and
feasibility of pollution control measures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 14, 2010 (75 FR 55713), EPA proposed to approve
Montana's attainment plan. EPA proposed this action in accordance with
the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,'' 72 FR 20586
(Apr. 25, 2007), which EPA issued to assist states in their development
of SIPs to meet the Act's attainment planning requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. We received no adverse comments on our
proposal, which we finalized on March 17, 2011 (76 FR 14584).

III. Summary of Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing two separate and independent determinations
regarding the Libby nonattainment area. First, pursuant to section
188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to make a determination that the
Libby nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by the area's attainment date, April 2010. This proposed
determination is based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period that shows the area
has monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 annual NAAQS for
that period.
    EPA is also proposing to make a determination that the Libby
nonattainment area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. This proposed ``clean data'' determination is based upon
quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data that shows
the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. If EPA finalizes this
determination, any remaining requirements for the Libby

nonattainment area under subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA
regarding an attainment demonstration, reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), and contingency
measures related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain
the NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Even if these requirements are suspended, EPA is not
precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted
by the State to EPA for review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data

    The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted
quality-assured air quality monitoring data into the EPA Air Quality
System (AQS) database for 2007-2009 and subsequently certified that
data. EPA's evaluation of this data shows that the Libby nonattainment
area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by April 2010.
Additionally, the data set from the three most recent years, 2012-2014
(which is also quality-assured and certified), shows that the Libby
nonattainment area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. The data is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. Additional
information on the air quality data found in AQS for the Libby
nonattainment area can be found in the docket for this action.
    The criteria for determining if an area is attaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS are set out in 40 CFR 50.13 and 40 CFR
part 50, Appendix N. The 1997 annual PM2.5 primary and
secondary standards are met when the annual design value is less than
or equal to 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Three years of valid annual means are
required to produce a valid annual standard design value. A year meets
data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent of the
scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data. The use of
less than complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may
consider factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring
diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such
data.
    This proposed determination of attainment for the Libby
nonattainment area is based on EPA's evaluation of quality-controlled,
quality-assured, and certified annual PM2.5 air quality data
for the 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 monitoring periods. There is one
PM2.5 monitor in the Libby nonattainment area (AQS Site ID
30-053-0018). This monitor had complete data for all quarters in the
years 2007 through 2014, except for one calendar quarter in 2011.\3\
The monitoring data and calculated design values for the Libby
nonattainment area are summarized in Table 1 for the 2007-2009
monitoring period and in Table 2 for the 2012-2014 monitoring period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Libby nonattainment area monitor had less than complete
data capture in 2011, due to quality assurance issues.

                                Table 1--2007-2009 Libby Nonattainment Area Annual PM2.5 Monitoring Data and Completeness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual mean                2007-2009              Complete quarters
           Location                Site ID    ------------------------------------   Design Value  ------------------------------------  Complete data?
                                                  2007        2008        2009     ([micro]g/m\3\)     2007        2008        2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Libby................    30-053-0018        13.0        12.9        10.7             12.2           4           4           4   Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Table 2--2012-2014 Libby Nonattainment Area Annual PM2.5 Monitoring Data and Completeness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual mean                2007-2009              Complete quarters
           Location                Site ID    ------------------------------------   Design Value  ------------------------------------  Complete data?
                                                  2012        2013        2014     ([micro]g/m\3\)     2012        2013        2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Libby................    30-053-0018        11.3        10.9         9.3             10.5           4           4           4   Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA
has reviewed the PM2.5 ambient air monitoring data for the
monitoring periods 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 for the Libby nonattainment
area, as recorded in the AQS database. On the basis of that review, EPA
proposes to determine that the Libby nonattainment area (1) attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date, based on
data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period, and (2) continued to attain
during the 2012-2014 monitoring period.

V. Effect of Proposed Determinations of Attainment for 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA
(Subpart 4)

    This section and section VI of EPA's proposal addresses the effects
of a final clean data determination and a final determination of
attainment by the attainment date for the Libby nonattainment area. For
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, EPA's ``Final Clean Air Fine
Particle Implementation Rule,'' 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007), embodied
EPA's ``Clean Data Policy'' interpretation under subpart 1 of Part D of
Title I of the CAA (subpart 1). As promulgated by the rule, the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.004 set forth the effects of a determination of
attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard.
    On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the
``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule, 73 FR
28321 (May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule'' or ``Implementation Rule''). The Court found that
EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant
solely to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1, part D,
title I of the CAA, rather than the particulate-matter-specific
provisions of subpart 4. The Court remanded EPA's Implementation Rule
for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.
    In light of the Court's decision and its remand of the
Implementation Rule, EPA finalized the ``Identification of
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'' on June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566),
(``PM2.5 Classification and Deadline Rule''). This
rulemaking classified the Libby nonattainment area as ``Moderate'' for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Under

section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated nonattainment under
subpart 4 would initially be classified by operation of law as
``Moderate'' nonattainment areas, and would remain Moderate
nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a
``Serious'' nonattainment area or redesignates the area to attainment.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential
impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to
Moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4
apply to Moderate nonattainment areas and include an attainment
demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); provisions for RACM (section
189(a)(1)(C)); and quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward
attainment by the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
    As set forth in more detail below, under EPA's Clean Data Policy
interpretation, a determination that the area has attained the standard
suspends the state's obligation to submit attainment-related planning
requirements of subpart 4 (and the applicable provisions of subpart 1)
for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. These include
requirements to submit an attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and
contingency measures, because the purpose of these provisions is to
help reach attainment, a goal which has already been achieved.

A. Background on Clean Data Policy

    Over the past two decades, EPA has consistently applied its Clean
Data Policy interpretation to attainment-related provisions of subparts
1, 2, and 4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several EPA
memoranda and regulations. In addition, numerous individual rulemakings
published in the Federal Register have applied the interpretation to a
spectrum of NAAQS, including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone,
PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO) and lead (Pb)
standards. The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean Data Policy
interpretation as embodied in EPA's 1997 8-Hour Ozone Implementation
Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.\4\ NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Other U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that have considered and reviewed
EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation have upheld it and the
rulemakings applying EPA's interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d
1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir.
June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion); Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009) (memorandum opinion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``EPA's Final Rule to implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule)'' (70 FR
71612, 71645-46; November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, EPA incorporated its Clean Data Policy
interpretation in both its 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule and in its
PM2.5 Implementation Rule. While the D.C. Circuit, in its
January 4, 2013 decision, remanded the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, the Court did not address the merits of that
portion of the rule, nor cast doubt on EPA's existing interpretation of
the statutory provisions.
    However, in light of the Court's decision, EPA's Clean Data Policy
interpretation under subpart 4 is set forth here, for the purpose of
identifying the effects of a determination of attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard for the Libby nonattainment area. EPA
has previously articulated its Clean Data interpretation under subpart
4 in implementing the PM10 standard. See, e.g., 75 FR 27944
(May 19, 2010) (determination of attainment of the PM10
standard in Coso Junction, California); 71 FR 6352 (Feb. 8, 2006) (Ajo,
Arizona Area); 71 FR 13021 (Mar. 14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona Area); 71 FR
40023 (July 14, 2006) (Weirton, West Virginia Area); 71 FR 44920 (Aug.
8, 2006) (Rillito, Arizona Area); 71 FR 63642 (Oct. 30, 2006) (San
Joaquin Valley, California Area); 72 FR 14422 (Mar. 28, 2007) (Miami,
Arizona Area); 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, California
Area). Thus, EPA has repeatedly established that, under subpart 4, an
attainment determination suspends the obligations to submit an
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other
measures related to attainment.

B. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related
Provisions of Subpart 4

    In EPA's proposed and final rulemaking actions determining that the
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM10
standard, EPA set forth at length its rationale for applying the Clean
Data Policy to PM10 under subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit
upheld EPA's final rulemaking, and specifically EPA's Clean Data
Policy, in the context of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009) (memorandum opinion). In
rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the Clean Data Policy under
subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit stated, ``As the EPA
explained, if an area is in compliance with PM10 standards,
then further progress for the purpose of ensuring attainment is not
necessary.''
    The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the
more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not
superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated
as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4, itself, contains
specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10
nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013 decision in
NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general
guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making
recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for
SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, ``State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 16, 1992) (the ``General
Preamble''). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of
subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart
1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related
to, the more specific PM10 requirements.'' Id. at 13538.
These subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions
for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and
contingency measures.
    EPA has long interpreted the provisions of subpart 1 (section 171
and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP for an area already
attaining the ozone NAAQS. For an area that is attaining, showing that
the state will make RFP towards attainment ``will, therefore, have no
meaning at that point.'' General Preamble, 57 FR 13564. See also 71 FR
40952 (July 19, 2006) and 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) (proposed and
final determination of attainment for San Joaquin Valley); 75 FR 13710
(March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (proposed and final
determination of attainment for Coso Junction).
    Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states that:

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the
Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable
further progress, as defined in section [section 171(1)] of this
title, toward attainment by the applicable date.

    With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of
part D, RFP

``means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant
air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus, whether dealing
with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2), the ozone-
specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific
RFP requirements for PM10 areas of section 189(c)(1), the
stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable
attainment date.
    Although section 189(c) states that revisions shall contain
milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to
attainment, such milestones are designed to show RFP ``toward
attainment by the applicable attainment date,'' as defined by section
171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no
further milestones are necessary or meaningful. This interpretation is
supported by language in section 189(c)(3), which mandates that a state
that fails to achieve a milestone must submit a plan that assures that
the state will achieve the milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no
next milestone. Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to
submit and achieve milestones does not continue after attainment of the
NAAQS.
    In the General Preamble, EPA noted with respect to section 189(c)
that the purpose of the milestone requirement ``is to `provide for
emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable
attainment date' (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267
(1990)).'' 57 FR 13539. If an area has in fact attained the standard,
the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have already been
fulfilled.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Thus, EPA believes that it is a distinction without a
difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as
one to be achieved until an area is ``redesignated attainment,'' as
opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which
the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP
requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the
RFP requirements as applying until the ``attainment date,'' since
section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the
CAA. The reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the
general RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific
requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific
requirements may only be required ``for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard
by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). As discussed in the
text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in
light of the definition of RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated
in section 189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies
once the standard has been attained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the requirements of section 189(c)(2) with respect to
milestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the
standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:

Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone
applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of
such area is located shall submit to the Administrator a
demonstration . . . that the milestone has been met.

    Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further
milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission
showing that such milestones have been met. This is consistent with the
position that EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of
section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in
the May 10, 1995 EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, ``Reasonable
Further Progress, Attainment Demonstrations, and Related Requirements
for the Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard,'' (the ``1995 Seitz memorandum'') with respect to
the requirements of section 182(b) and (c). In the 1995 Seitz
memorandum, EPA also noted that section 182(g), the milestone
requirement of subpart 2, which is analogous to provisions in section
189(c), is suspended upon a determination that an area has attained.
The memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, stated:

Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the attainment
demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2),
if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit the
underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not submit
the related SIP submission either. See, 1995 Seitz memorandum at
page 5.

    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads
to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide
for ``a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP]
will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date . . .''
As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring
attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area
to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve
attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble,
and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the 1995 Seitz
memorandum. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to
provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation
to attainment since ``attainment will have been reached.'' 57 FR 13564.
    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of sections 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted the contingency measure
requirements of sections 172(c)(9) \6\ as no longer applying when an
area has attained the standard because those ``contingency measures are
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.'' 57 FR
13564; 1995 Seitz memorandum, pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ And section 182(c)(9) for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas:

. . . shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to
be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress,
or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under
this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as
contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further
action by the State or [EPA].

    The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the RFP
and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are
implemented if RFP targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not
realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved
attainment by the attainment date, it has no need to rely on
contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further
progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: ``The
section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564.
Thus these requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the
standard.
    Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ``provisions to
assure that reasonably available control measures'' (i.e., RACM) are
implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble, (57 FR
13560; April 16, 1992), states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so
that RACM requirements are a ``component'' of an area's attainment
demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration
no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer
applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require
only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to
RFP

or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR 13498. Thus, where an area is
already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are
required.\7\ EPA is interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) consistent with
its interpretation of section 172(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA's interpretation that the statute requires
implementation only of RACM measures that would advance attainment
was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002),
and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Sierra
Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suspension of the obligations to submit SIP revisions
concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, contingency
measure and other related requirements exists only for as long as the
area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If EPA
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has
monitored a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements
being suspended would no longer exist. In that case, the area would
again be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision
or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a
final determination that the area need not submit one of the pertinent
SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the requirements
for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Only if and
when EPA redesignates the area to attainment would the area be relieved
of these submission obligations. Attainment determinations under the
Clean Data Policy do not shield an area from obligations unrelated to
attainment in the area, such as provisions to address pollution
transport.
    As set forth previously, based on our proposed determination that
the Libby nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes to find that any remaining
obligations under subpart 4 to submit planning provisions to meet the
requirements for an attainment demonstration, RFP plans, RACM, and
contingency measures are suspended for so long as the area continues to
monitor attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If in the
future, EPA determines after notice-and-comment rulemaking that the
area again violates the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis
for suspending the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency
measure obligations would no longer exist.

VI. Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date

    As discussed in the Background section, on March 17, 2011 EPA
approved April 2010 as the applicable attainment date for the Libby
nonattainment area.\8\ Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's 2013 decision
and its remand of the Implementation Rule, on June 2, 2014 (79 FR
31566), EPA published a final rule classifying all areas currently
designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5
standards as Moderate under subpart 4. EPA also established a deadline
of December 31, 2014 for states to submit attainment-related and
nonattainment new source review SIP elements required for these areas
under subpart 4. This rulemaking did not affect any action that EPA had
previously taken under section 110(k) of the Act on a SIP for a
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA's March 17, 2011
approval of the April 2010 attainment date for the Libby nonattainment
area remains in effect. Based on monitoring data from 2007-2009, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Libby nonattainment area attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by that attainment date. If we
finalize this proposal, this will discharge EPA's obligation under CAA
section 188(b)(2) to determine whether the area attained the standard
by the applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's approval did not specifically identify the fifth of
April as the attainment date. Regardless of the specific day in
April, the monitoring data from the 2007-2009 period shows
attainment by April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to
determine that the Libby nonattainment area has attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the area's attainment date, April
2010. Separately and independently, EPA is proposing to determine,
based on the most recent three years of quality-assured and certified
data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, that the
Libby nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. In conjunction with and based upon our proposed
determination that the Libby nonattainment area has attained and is
currently attaining the standard, EPA proposes to determine that any
remaining obligations under subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA to
submit the following attainment-related planning requirements are not
applicable for so long as the area continues to attain the
PM2.5 standard: An attainment demonstration pursuant to
section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C), and
the RFP provisions of section 189(c). This proposed rulemaking action,
if finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under
CAA section 107(d)(3). These proposed determinations are based upon
quality-assured and quality certified ambient air monitoring data that
show the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 monitoring
periods.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    This rulemaking action proposes to make determinations of
attainment based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result
in the suspension of certain federal requirements and would not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these proposed determinations of attainment:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     do 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);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: March 25, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-08405 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71848-71850]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29217]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68308; File No. SR-OCC-2012-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes
to Explicitly State That OCC May Reject a Request for Withdrawal of
Margin or Make an Intra-Day Margin Call in Situations Where a Clearing
Member's Projected Settlement Obligations Could Exceed OCC's Available
Liquidity Resources

November 28, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 26, 2012, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which
items have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposal
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
\4\ thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this Notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    OCC proposes to explicitly state that OCC may reject a request for
withdrawal of margin or make an intra-day margin call in situations
where a clearing member's projected settlement obligations could exceed
OCC's available liquidity resources.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt certain
interpretations under existing OCC Rules 608 and 609 in order to place
clearing members on notice of situations in which OCC may exercise
existing authority to reject a margin withdrawal request, or to make an
intra-day margin call, including where a Clearing Member's projected
settlement obligations could exceed OCC's available liquidity
resources. For this purpose OCC would consider as liquidity resources
only margin assets in the form of cash. In its sole discretion, OCC
might also consider margin assets in the form of U.S. Government
securities, which could be quickly converted to cash, and/or amounts
that OCC would be able to borrow on short notice under its credit
facility or otherwise.
    Rule 609 currently provides that ``[OCC] may require the deposit of
such additional margin by any Clearing Member in any account at any
time during any business day, as such officer

deems advisable to * * * protect [OCC], other Clearing Members or the
general public.'' Rule 609 further provides that such intra-day margin
calls must be satisfied in immediately available funds within one hour
(or other prescribed time frame) after the issuance of the call.
Ordinarily, clearing members are permitted to substitute other
acceptable forms of margin assets to replace cash collected via an
intra-day margin call. If a sufficient amount of such assets has been
deposited to meet the clearing member's then current margin
requirement, the clearing member may make a request to withdraw any
excess margin pursuant to Rule 608. The return of specific excess
margin assets, including cash, also may be requested, subject to the
Rule's limitation that no clearing member may withdraw margin in any
form or currency in excess of the amount of margin of that form or
currency deposited in the clearing member's account from which the
withdrawal is to be made. However, Rule 608 also provides that ``[OCC]
may, if it deems advisable for any of the reasons described in Rule
609, reject any such withdrawal request.'' Accordingly, in the event
OCC determines that such actions are necessary for the protection of
OCC, other clearing members, or the general public, OCC may require a
clearing member to deposit additional margin in the form of cash
through an intra-day margin call and preclude the withdrawal of some or
all of such assets from OCC's system.
    OCC wishes to put Clearing Members on notice of certain specific
circumstances in which OCC may take such actions under Rule 608 and 609
by adopting a similar interpretation under each Rule. Specifically, OCC
wishes to state expressly that it may refuse a margin withdrawal
request or request additional intra-day margin where a Clearing
Member's future settlement obligations could result in a need for
liquidity in excess of available liquidity resources. Such action might
be taken even though OCC has made no adverse determination as to the
financial condition of the Clearing Member, the market risk of the
Clearing Member's positions, or the adequacy of the Clearing Member's
total overall margin deposited in the accounts in question.
    A circumstance in which OCC might desire to reject a margin
withdrawal request or make an intra-day margin call to ensure that it
had sufficient liquidity in connection with a pending settlement
obligation involves the ``unwinding'' of a ``box spread'' position. A
box spread position involves a combination of two long and two short
options on the same underlying interest with the same expiration date
that results in an amount to be paid or received upon settlement that
is fixed regardless of fluctuations in the price of the underlying
interest. Box spreads can be used as financing transactions, and they
may require very large fixed payments upon expiration. In this
situation, if much of the margin deposited by the relevant Clearing
Member is in the form of common stock and if the Clearing Member failed
to make the settlement payment, the available liquidity resources might
be insufficient to cover the settlement obligation. In anticipation of
this settlement, OCC might therefore require the Clearing Member to
deposit intra-day margin in the form of cash, or reject a requested
withdrawal of cash or U.S. Government securities, so that liquidity
resources would be sufficient to cover the Clearing Member's settlement
obligations. Under the proposed interpretations, OCC would always
include margin assets of the relevant Clearing Member in the form of
cash in determining available liquidity resources and could, in its
discretion, consider the amount of margin assets in the form of highly
liquid U.S. Government securities and/or the amount that OCC would be
able to borrow on short notice. The proposed interpretations make it
clear that OCC might exercise its authority under these Rules to
address liquidity needs.
    OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A of the Act because it is designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,\6\
including the safeguarding of securities and funds related thereto, and
to protect investors and persons facilitating transactions by and
acting on behalf of investors. It does so by interpreting OCC's
existing authority to require deposits of additional margin or to
reject requests to withdraw margin, minimize OCC's liquidity risk, and
preserve its liquidity resources. The proposed rule change is not
inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules
proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose a
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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \7\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \8\ thereunder
because it constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation
with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an
existing rule. 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-OCC-2012-21 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-OCC-2012-21. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site
at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_12_21.pdf.
    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-OCC-2012-21
and should be submitted on or before December 26, 2012.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29217 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58108-58110]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18347]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0660]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River Mile Markers 79.5-80, Wellsburg, WV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the Ohio River from September 12 through September 15, 2023, at mile
marker 79.5 to mile marker 80 from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. each day. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable
waters during a helicopter operation. This rule prohibits persons and
vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on September 12, 2023 through
5 p.m. on September 15, 2023. This rule will be enforced from 8 a.m.
through 5 p.m. each day it is effective.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0660 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LTJG Eyobe Mills, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S.
Coast Guard, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. This safety zone must be established by September
12, 2023, to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters
during a helicopter operation, and we lack sufficient time to provide a
reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of
the safety zone until after the date of the helicopter operation.
Vessels inside of the safety zone have the potential of getting hit by
debris from the helicopter.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because action is needed by September 12, 2023, to ensure the safety of
the of life on the navigable waters during a helicopter operation.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with a helicopter operation on September
12 through September 15, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone on
the Ohio River from mile markers 79.5 to mile marker 80 from 8 a.m. to
5 p.m. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of the participant,
vessels, and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during,
and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone each day from 8 a.m.
until 5 p.m. on September 12 through September 15, 2023. The safety
zone will cover all navigable waters on the Ohio River from mile
markers 79.5 to mile marker 80. The duration of the zone is intended to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters during an installation of nine aerial transverse wirelines using
a helicopter.
    No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative of
the COTP. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under
the operational control of the COTP. To seek permission to enter,
contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16,
or through Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and
vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative.
The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the
effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the
dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs),
Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly,
this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
and duration of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone only
impacts a 0.5 mile stretch on the Ohio River for 9 hours each day from
September 12 through September 15, 2023. Moreover, the Coast Guard will
issue Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to
seek permission from the COTP to transit the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We
have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone lasting 9 hours each day from September 12
through September 15, 2023, on the Ohio River. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0660 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0660  Safety Zone; Ohio River, Wellsburg, WV.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone on the
Ohio River from mile marker 79.5 to mile marker 80.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety
zone. Designated representative include safety boat provided by the
event organizers.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative on Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety
zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by
the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced each day from
8 a.m. through 5 p.m. from September 12, 2023, through September 15,
2023. The temporary safety zone will be enforced during the 9 hours
helicopter operation on these days.

Eric J. Velez,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, MSU Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2023-18347 Filed 8-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35006-35007]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0048]

Recovery Policy RP9525.16, Research-Related Equipment and
Furnishings

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the availability of the final
policy RP9525.16, Research-related Equipment and Furnishings. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a notice of
availability and request for comments on August 13, 2010.

DATES: This policy is effective May 3, 2011.

ADDRESSES: This final policy is available online at http://www.regulations.gov and on FEMA's Web site at http://www.fema.gov. The
proposed and final policy, all related Federal Register notices, and
all public comments received during the comment period are available at
http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2010-0048. You may also
view a hard copy of the final policy at the Office of Chief Counsel,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Atkinson, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, or via e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The intent of this policy is to identify the expenses associated
with disaster-damaged research-related equipment and furnishings of
eligible private nonprofit or public facilities that are eligible for
reimbursement under the Public Assistance (PA) Program. FEMA requested
review and comment on the draft policy from August 13, 2010, through
September 13, 2010 (75 FR 49506). FEMA received and adjudicated the
comments. While the final policy does not make significant substantive
changes to the previously effective policy (dated April 30, 2007), the
updated policy does include clarifying language in several sections.
These clarifications include: additional language on FEMA authorities
in section V; the addition of section VI.D on the application of
existing PA insurance requirements; a minor clarification in VIII.A
indicating that an active research program must support an eligible
function; an update to VIII.B.1 that allows an applicant input on
decisions regarding the genetic likeness of lab animals; the deletion
document retention language in VIII.B.3, given that existing PA
documentation requirements apply to all PA projects, including
involving research-related equipment and furnishings; and a minor
clarification in section VIII.F by citing the specific relevant
provision in the regulations.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 5121-5207; 44 CFR part 206.

David J. Kaufman,
Director, Office of Policy and Program Analysis, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-14867 Filed 6-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 40819-40820]
[DOCID:fr14jy10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-465-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

July 7, 2010.
    Take notice that on June 23, 2010, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed a
prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210
of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for
authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain one new 10,311
horsepower (HP) compressor including appurtenant, auxiliary facilities
at Gulf's existing Clarence Compressor Station located in Natchitoches
Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the application,

which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, South proposes to construct, own, and operate one new
compressor unit at its existing compressor station near Clarence,
Louisiana. This additional compression unit is designed to enhance Gulf
South's capability in order to provide the firm transportation service
which BG Energy Merchants, LLC has requested.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to M.L.
Gutierrez, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners,
LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by telephone at
(713) 479-8059, or by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefor, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17104 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P