[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14212-14217]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Request for Proposals for Implementing a High-Speed
Rail Corridor

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of request for proposals.

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

SUMMARY: Section 11308 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94 (December 4, 2015), requires the
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to ``issue a request for
proposals for projects for the financing, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of a high-speed passenger rail system
operating within a high-speed rail corridor.'' To satisfy this
requirement, the FRA is soliciting and encouraging the submission of
proposals to finance, design, construct, operate, and maintain a high-
speed rail (HSR) system. FRA will review the proposals within 90 days
of their receipt and the Secretary may establish commissions to further
review proposals that the Secretary determines warrant further
consideration.

DATES: All proposals submitted in response to this notice shall be
submitted by 5 p.m. ET on August 31, 2016, in accordance with the
instructions in ADDRESSES below.

ADDRESSES: Any questions, responses or proposals in response to this
notice shall be submitted under the docket number FRA-2016-0014 by any
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number (FRA-2016-0014) for this Request for Proposals (RFP)
process. Note that all comments received will be posted, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials. Internet users may
access comments received by DOT at http://www.regulations.gov.
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, submit a version from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to the docket as specified
above and send two copies of your complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential business information,
following the steps outlined in ``Requests for Confidential Treatment''
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document to Mr. Trevor
Gibson as specified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information from FRA, please
contact Mr. Trevor Gibson, Office of Railroad Policy and Development,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS-20/W36-
411, Washington, DC 20590. Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Table of Contents

1. Background on High-Speed Rail (HSR)
2. Background on This RFP
3. Previous Request for Expressions of Interest
4. Who May Respond
5. Performance Standards for HSR Systems
6. Corridor Definitions
7. Required Contents of Proposals
8. Optional Contents Requested for Inclusion in Proposals
9. Format for Submissions
10. Evaluation and Selection Process for Proposals
11. Freedom of Information Act Applicability
12. Requests for Confidential Treatment

    1. Background on High-Speed Rail (HSR): HSR is self-guided
intercity passenger ground transportation that is

time competitive with air and/or auto on a door-to-door basis for trips
in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. A corridor is a natural
grouping of metropolitan areas and markets that, by their proximity and
configuration, lend themselves to efficient service by HSR.
    America's population is estimated to increase by 70 million people,
or more than 20 percent, by 2045 (U.S. Department of Transportation,
Beyond Traffic 2045: Trends and Choices, 2015). The majority of this
growth will be concentrated in the Nation's growing megaregions--
densely populated, metropolitan areas with interlocking economies and
shared transportation, environmental, and cultural resources. To
maintain economic competitiveness and quality-of-life, the U.S. must
have an interconnected and balanced transportation network that
maximizes the benefits of every mode. Rail transportation will play a
critical role in accommodating this growth and provide an alternative
to the Nation's increasingly congested airports and highways. This
request for proposals to finance, design, construct, operate, and
maintain high-speed rail corridors will set the stage for job creation,
sustainable economic competitiveness, a more resilient infrastructure,
and a lasting prosperity.
    2. Background on this RFP Section 11308 of the FAST Act, Public Law
114-94 (December 4, 2015), requires the Secretary of Transportation to
``issue a request for proposals for projects for the financing, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of a high-speed passenger rail
system operating within a high-speed rail corridor.'' Potential
corridors include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (A) Northeast Corridor;
    (B) California Corridor;
    (C) Pacific Northwest Corridor;
    (D) South Central Corridor;
    (E) Gulf Coast Corridor;
    (F) Chicago Hub Network;
    (G) Florida Corridor;
    (H) Southeast Corridor;
    (I) Keystone Corridor;
    (J) Empire Corridor; and
    (K) Northern New England Corridor.
    The FAST Act prescribes that responses to this RFP will be
considered by the Secretary and possibly by commissions representing
affected and involved governors, mayors, freight railroads, transit
authorities, labor organizations, and Amtrak. Based on the results of
these reviews, proposals may be summarized in one or more reports to
Congress, which will make recommendations for further action. FRA
envisions this as the first phase of a qualification process that
Congress may follow with more specific actions regarding particular
proposals in one or more corridors.
    However, no Federal funding is associated with this provision and,
in the FAST Act, Congress prohibited any Federal agency from taking
subsequent actions to further ``implement, establish, facilitate, or
otherwise act upon any proposals'' submitted under this RFP--other than
the actions described in this notice--without ``explicit statutory
authority'' to be subsequently provided by Congress. Respondents to
this RFP acknowledge, by virtue of their response, that the likelihood
of future funding and implementation of the proposed projects covered
by this notice is unknown, and that the Federal Government is not
liable for any costs incurred preparing responses to this notice.
    3. Previous Request for Expressions of Interest: Section 502 of the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-
432 (October 16, 2008), required a similar proposal process to the FAST
Act provisions outlined in this notice. FRA published a request for
expressions of interest in the Federal Register on December 16, 2008
(Vol. 73, No. 242, 76443-76448) requiring proposals to be submitted to
FRA by September 14, 2009. The Secretary did not establish commissions
to further consider any of the proposals submitted in 2009.
    4. Who May Respond: Responses to this RFP are welcome from all
sources. Section 11308 calls for comprehensive proposals that will
address all the tasks necessary to implement HSR. Potential proposers
are advised to verify, before committing resources to responding to
this RFP, that they would be able to assemble a multi-disciplinary team
that can plan, organize, finance, design, and construct a complete HSR
system, as well as gain the support of the key public and private
stakeholders, and successfully operate and maintain it on a long-term
basis.
    5. Performance Standards for HSR Systems: Section 11308 requires
that the HSR proposals submitted in response to this RFP meet the
following travel time performance standards:
    (A) For the Northeast Corridor between New York and Washington:
Proposed express service must link Pennsylvania Station, New York, with
Union Station, Washington, with a reliable travel time of two hours;
and
    (B) For all other corridors with existing intercity passenger rail
service, including the Northeast Corridor between New York and Boston:
Existing minimum intercity rail scheduled service trip times (as shown
in Amtrak's published timetable in effect on January 11, 2016) between
endpoints and all other main corridor city-pairs must be reduced by a
minimum of 25 percent, and reliable service provided. If no service
presently exists in the proposed corridor, the respondent will need to
demonstrate that the proposed service will be reliable and time
competitive with other modes of transportation in the corridor.
    6. Corridor Definitions: Section 11308 identifies eleven potential
high speed rail corridors but does not limit proposals to these
corridors. The corridors listed in Section 11308 are defined as
follows:
    (A) ``Northeast Corridor'' between Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD,
Wilmington, DE, Philadelphia, PA, Trenton, NJ, New York, NY, New Haven,
CT, Providence, RI, and Boston, MA. Separate service standards apply
north and south of New York City, see Performance Standards for HSR
Systems, above;
    (B) ``California Corridor'' connecting and between the San
Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego, CA;
    (C) ``Pacific Northwest Corridor'' between Eugene and Portland, OR,
Seattle, WA, and Vancouver, BC, Canada;
    (D) ``South Central Corridor'' along three branches between Dallas/
Fort Worth, TX and:
    (1) Austin and San Antonio, TX;
    (2) Oklahoma City and Tulsa, OK; and
    (3) Texarkana and Little Rock, AR;
    (E) ``Gulf Coast Corridor'' along three branches between New
Orleans, LA and:
    (1) Birmingham, AL and Atlanta, GA;
    (2) Houston, TX; and
    (3) Mobile, AL;
    (F) ``Chicago Hub Network'' along six routes between:
    (1) Chicago, IL, Milwaukee, WI and Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN;
    (2) Chicago, IL and Detroit, MI;
    (3) Chicago, IL, Toledo and Cleveland, OH;
    (4) Chicago, IL, Indianapolis, IN, and both Cincinnati, OH and
Louisville, KY;
    (5) Chicago, IL, St. Louis, MO and Kansas City, MO; and
    (6) The transversal extension between Cleveland, Columbus, and
Cincinnati, OH;
    (G) ``Florida Corridor'' between Miami, Orlando, and the Tampa Bay
region, FL;
    (H) ``Southeast Corridor'' along three branches between:
    (1) Washington, DC, Richmond, VA, Raleigh, Greensboro and
Charlotte, NC, Greenville, SC and Atlanta, GA;
    (2) Raleigh, NC, Columbia, SC, Savannah, GA, Jacksonville, FL; and

    (3) Atlanta, Macon, and Jesup, GA, thence either or both Savannah,
GA and Jacksonville FL;
    (I) ``Keystone Corridor'' between Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and
Pittsburgh, PA, over the route of the former Pennsylvania Railroad;
    (J) ``Empire Corridor'' between New York City, Albany and Buffalo,
NY, over the route of the former New York Central Railroad; and
    (K) ``Northern New England Corridor'' along three branches between
Boston, MA and:
    (1) Portland/Lewiston-Auburn, ME;
    (2) Concord, NH, Montpelier, VT, Montreal, QE, Canada; and
    (3) Springfield, MA and to both New Haven, CT and Albany, NY; and
    7. Required Contents of Proposals: Proposals in response to this
RFP must include the following:
    (A) The name(s) and qualifications of the person(s) submitting the
proposal, and the names and qualifications of the lead entity and each
member/entity of the team proposed to finance, design, construct,
operate, and maintain the railroad, railroad equipment, and related
facilities, stations, and infrastructure. Describe how such entities
would be related to the lead entity;
    (B) An executive summary, not to exceed 3 pages, of the proposed
project concept, including:
    (1) Markets served, including a concept map;
    (2) Station locations;
    (3) Trip times for major markets indicating that program
performance standards will be met;
    (4) Peak and average operating speeds of the train service;
    (5) Proposed routes and alignments, noting the extent of new
rights-of-way (ROW) and use of existing ROW, as well as a general
discussion of how the intended reliability requirements will be
achieved;
    (6) Type of train equipment to be used, the maximum speed of that
equipment, and any technologies used to meet trip time goals;
    (7) Proposed organizational structure;
    (8) Salient features of the intended operation as they may affect
operating practices and unit costs;
    (9) Total capital cost and expected contributions by Federal,
state, and other public and private sources;
    (C) The benefits to the public and the national transportation
system, including an explanation of why the project is cost-effective
and what advantages it offers over existing services. Provide a
detailed technical description of the proposed project, including:
    (1) Populations of markets served by each of the proposed stations;
    (2) Existing intercity traffic (passengers, vehicle capacity,
frequency) by mode;
    (3) Proposed station locations and, for each, whether it is
existing or new, and how it maximizes the use of existing
infrastructure;
    (4) How the project will facilitate convenient intermodal travel
connections with other transportation services and systems;
    (5) Trip time and fare comparisons among proposed services,
existing rail services, if any, and competing modes for major city
pairs;
    (6) An operating plan with train service frequency, timetable, and
information on intermodal connections;
    (7) Annual ridership and revenue projections for 10 years with
documentation of assumptions and methods;
    (8) Operating costs with documentation of assumptions and methods;
    (9) The impact of the project on highway and aviation congestion,
energy consumption, pollutant emissions, land use and economic
development;
    (10) A description of how the design, construction, implementation,
and operation of the proposed project will accommodate and allow for
future growth of existing and projected intercity, commuter, and
freight rail service;
    (11) The impact of the proposed project on other intercity,
commuter, and freight rail services;
    (12) Proposed routes and alignments noting the extent of new ROW
and use of existing ROW;
    (13) Required infrastructure investments and improvements,
including the feasibility of building new track and method for securing
required ROW;
    (14) How adverse impacts of the proposed project would be
mitigated;
    (15) The type and quantity of train equipment to be used, with
technical specifications, such as consist, maximum speed, passenger
capacity, energy consumption profile, acceleration and deceleration
rates;
    (16) Project capital costs for major categories of expenditures
(track structures, tunnels, bridges, vehicles, stations, maintenance
equipment and facilities, communication and control systems, and power
systems), with documentation of assumptions and methods;
    (17) How the proposed project would contribute to the development
of a national HSR system;
    (18) A detailed analysis of the methods and technologies for
achieving the required reductions in trip times and the intended
reliability standards; and
    (19) Synopses and references for any past high-speed rail studies
deemed relevant.
    (D) Present a detailed financial plan for the proposed project,
including:
    (1) Projected annual operating revenues by year and sources;
    (2) Estimates of annual operating costs by type of expenditure;
    (3) Annual schedule of capital costs required both initially and in
subsequent years to maintain a state-of-good-repair and to recapitalize
as necessary to sustain the initially proposed level of service or
higher levels of service;
    (4) Sources and descriptions of capital funds, including terms,
conditions and expectation for return on equity;
    (5) Credit assumptions including sources, guarantees, terms,
maturity and special conditions;
    (6) A description of the insurance program contemplated for
construction and operation;
    (7) A description of construction cost risk sharing and rationale
for the proposed approach;
    (8) A description of revenue and operating cost risk sharing and
rationale for the proposed approach;
    (9) Projected levels of private investment and sources thereof,
including the identity of any person or entity that has made or is
expected to make a commitment to provide or secure funding and the
amount of such commitment;
    (10) Projected funding for the full fair market compensation for
any asset, property right or interest, or service acquired from, owned,
or held by a private person or Federal entity that would be acquired,
impaired, or diminished in value as a result of a project, except as
otherwise agreed to by the private person or entity; and
    (11) A projected financial statement for the proposed organization
showing annual revenues, costs, investments, and debt service from
project inception through construction, testing, and the first 20 years
of operation;
    (E) Describe the institutional framework and address other
institutional issues, including:
    (1) A project structure organization chart showing the proposer
team and all the relationships among the public and private entities
involved in the proposed project, a description of the relationships
among the entities responsible for the financing, design, construction,
operation and

maintenance of the proposed project (including their equity stakes),
and the roles of other participants in the operational aspects of the
proposed project;
    (2) Any new entities required to be created and how they will be
structured legally and financially;
    (3) Integration of the proposed service with Amtrak, other HSR rail
services, other intercity passenger systems, and local access/egress
systems;
    (4) The feasibility of gaining access to required ROW, the approach
to track capacity including building new track, and any public and
private agreements for facility access and the expected costs of each;
    (5) Required governmental actions and approvals and the role of the
state government(s) in implementing the proposal; and
    (6) The relationship to state rail plans and programs or, if not
already part of such plans or programs, a statement describing plans
for integration into them;
    (F) Identify legislative actions needed, if any, to facilitate all
aspects of the proposed project, including:
    (1) Required Federal, state, and/or local legislation to authorize
and create a sponsoring entity for the proposed project, or to remove
legal impediments to project implementation, or otherwise facilitate
the proposed project;
    (2) Required public funding commitments, Federal, state, and/or
local; and
    (3) Required to allow the project to benefit from government-
sponsored credit assistance programs, such as the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program (45 U.S.C. 821 et
seq.) and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
program (23 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); and
    (G) Describe how the proposed project will be implemented to comply
with Federal, state and local laws, including but not limited to:
    (1) Laws governing the rights and status of employees associated
with the route and service, including those specified in Section 24405
of title 49 United States Code;
    (2) Buy America, as specified in Section 24405 of title 49 United
States Code;
    (3) Rail safety and security laws, orders, and regulations
governing HSR operations, including, but not limited to, the railroad
safety provisions in Part 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the
requirements of the FAST Act;
    (4) Environmental laws and regulations and the status or any
progress towards completion of required documentation or actions under
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Section
4(f) of the DOT Act (23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303), or other
applicable Federal or state environmental impact assessment laws; and
    (5) The Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended.
    8. Optional Contents Requested for Inclusion in Proposals: In
addition to the required contents, respondents are requested to
provide, at their option, their perspectives on what type of
contracting and financing strategies are most likely to facilitate
successful HSR projects. FRA is particularly interested in perspectives
that draw on prior experience with HSR projects. In responding to this
RFP, please consider addressing the following:
    (A) What type of contracting structure is likely to provide the
most effective allocation of the risk and responsibility for each
element of the project (design, construction, financing, operation and
maintenance) between the private and public sectors?
    (B) Should all of the project elements to be performed by the
private sector be procured in a single procurement or separately (for
example, separate procurements for civil works, the provision of
systems and equipment, and long-term operations and maintenance of the
system)?
    (C) Should the project's financing rely on commercial ticket fares
and other revenue generated directly by the facility to pay for all or
any portion of the project's cost, and should the private partner
assume the risk that these revenues will be sufficient to repay all or
any portion of the project's financing?
    (D) What role should public sector commitments play in financing
the project or particular components of the project, and what type of
public commitment would be most effective?
    (E) What measures or commitments would be needed, including
possible legislation, to provide and facilitate multi-year Federal
commitments of any Federal financing needed for the project?
    (F) What role should private equity play in financing the project
or particular components of the project and how would terms and
conditions affect public sector participation?
    (G) Are there any key considerations that will encourage or
dissuade private sector involvement in the financing, design,
construction, and long-term operations and maintenance of HSR
corridors?
    (H) Should the commissions required by Section 11308 of the FAST
Act be organized and their work structured in the same way for all
corridors, and what structures and models should be considered to guide
the commissions?
    9. Format for Submissions: Each proposal shall be submitted
according to the instructions in ADDESSES above. Text and graphic
documents shall be submitted as either Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF
documents, in Times New Roman, 12 point font, with 1-inch margins.
Spreadsheets containing financial information shall be submitted as
Microsoft Excel (or compatible) or Adobe PDF documents.
    Each proposal should not exceed a maximum total of 50 pages,
excluding appendices. Proposals should be organized by the following
sections: cover page, proposer name(s) and contact information,
executive summary, detailed technical description, detailed financial
plan, institutional information, legislative actions, legal compliance
issues, and appendices containing any spreadsheets, drawings, and
tables. Optional content should be provided as an additional section
not included in the page count. The executive summary should not exceed
three (3) pages in length.
    10. Evaluation and Selection Process for Proposals: FRA will
evaluate each proposal in a phased process. Proposals will first be
screened for completeness in responding to this RFP. Following this
initial screening for completeness, proposals will undergo a review and
selection process as outlined below.
    Selection Criteria: The proposals will be assessed on the extent to
which each satisfies the following selection factors:
    (1) The project detailed in the proposal demonstrates the ability
to achieve the specified reduction in minimum intercity rail service
trip times and the intended reliability standards;
    (2) The project detailed in the proposal is sufficiently credible
to warrant further consideration, including containing pledges of the
requisite public or private funding or financing contemplated in the
proposal. Respondents whose financial plans do not provide adequate
assurances as to the availability of their intended funding and
financing sources will not advance to the commission stage of the RFP
process;
    (3) The project detailed in the proposal is likely to result in a
positive impact on the Nation's transportation system;
    (4) The project detailed in the proposal is cost-effective; and

    (5) The project detailed in the proposal is in the public interest.
    Step 1--FRA Review Process: Upon close of the RFP solicitation, FRA
will evaluate each proposal and determine if it is complete and if
there is evidence provided in the proposal that supports the
conclusions, based on the Selection Criteria.
    Step 2--Sufficient Resource Certification Process: The FAST Act
requires the Secretary to certify to Congress that DOT has sufficient
resources to undertake the program before any action is taken. The
Secretary has sent a letter to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives providing a conditional
certification stating that DOT has the resources to issue the RFP and
review proposals. Once all the proposals have gone through the FRA
Review Process, the Secretary can determine the financial and personnel
resources needed for the remainder of the program. This in turn will
allow the Secretary to issue a final certification on the sufficiency
of resources at the Department, or specify the resources that are
necessary to complete the program. While the FAST Act authorizes funds
to support the subsequent commission review process, no funds have been
appropriated for this provision as of the date of this RFP.
    Step 3--Commission Review Process: If the Secretary determines that
one or more proposals warrant further consideration and the Secretary
issues a final certification on the sufficiency of resources to
Congress, then the Secretary will establish a commission for each
relevant corridor no later than 90 days after the receipt of the
proposals. Commission members will include affected governors, mayors,
freight railroads, transit authorities, and labor organizations, as
well as Amtrak. The commission(s) will review the proposals forwarded
by the Secretary and prepare a report to the Secretary making
recommendations for further consideration.
    Step 4--Secretary Selection Process: Within 60 days of receipt of
each commission's evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary will
consider the commission report(s) and select proposals that: (1)
demonstrate a high likelihood of providing substantial benefits to the
public and the national transportation system; (2) are cost-effective,
considering public commitments necessary for implementation and
operation; and (3) promise significant advantages over existing
services operating in the same HSR corridor. The Secretary will then
submit one or more reports to Congress on the selected proposals.
    Until Congress issues follow-up actions for selected proposals, no
Federal agency may take any action to implement, establish, facilitate,
or otherwise act upon any proposal submitted under Section 11308, other
than those actions specifically authorized by that Section.
    11. Freedom of Information Act Applicability: Documents submitted
to the agency pursuant to this notice become agency records subject to
the public access provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. 552). FOIA generally provides that any person has a right,
enforceable in court, to obtain access to Federal agency records,
except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are
protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of
three special law enforcement record exclusions. The Department of
Transportation's regulations implementing the FOIA are found at 49 CFR
part 7. See the discussion later in this notice about the treatment of
trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a
person that is privileged or confidential.
    12. Requests for Confidential Treatment: FRA recognizes that
proposals submitted to the agency pursuant to this notice may contain
certain information that is or should be exempt from public release,
principally because the information constitutes trade secrets or
commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is
privileged or confidential as provided for in FOIA exemption 4 (5
U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). The term ``trade secret'' has been fairly narrowly
defined as a ``secret, commercially valuable plan, formula, process, or
device that is used for the making, preparing, compounding, or
processing of trade commodities and that can be said to be the end
product of either innovation or substantial effort.'' Public Citizen
Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1983). FRA
expects that there should be very limited, if any, need to submit trade
secret information in connection with this notice. Commercial or
financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or
confidential and thus exempt from release under FOIA exemption 4
typically involves information for which the release is likely to cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom
the information was obtained. National Parks & Conservation Association
v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). This is a fairly
restrictive standard and should serve to limit the volume of exempt
material that might be submitted.
    FRA also recognizes that the nature of the process established
through Section 11308 of the FAST Act, with the potential involvement
of a multi-member commission that could be charged with reviewing
proposals submitted pursuant to this notice, could present significant
challenges managing any confidential information is submitted. Thus,
respondents are encouraged to carefully review the applicable standards
governing what constitutes trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information and to limit the submission of such information
to that specifically needed to respond to this notice.
    A request for confidential treatment with respect to a document or
portion thereof may be made in accordance with instructions in
ADDRESSES above on the basis that the information is-- (1) Exempt from
the mandatory disclosure requirements of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552); (2)
Required to be held in confidence by 18 U.S.C. 1905; or (3) Otherwise
exempt by law from public disclosure. Any document containing
information for which confidential treatment is requested shall be
accompanied at the time of filing by a detailed statement justifying
non-disclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed
for confidentiality. Any document containing any information for which
confidential treatment is requested shall be marked ``CONFIDENTIAL'' or
``CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION'' in bold letters. If
confidentiality is requested for the entire document, or if it is
claimed that non-confidential information in the document is not
reasonably segregable from confidential information, the accompanying
statement of justification shall so indicate and include support with
specific legal authority. If confidentiality is requested for a portion
of the document, then the person filing the document shall file,
together with the document, a second copy of the document with the
information for which confidential treatment is requested redacted. If
the person filing a document, of which only a portion is requested to
be held in confidence, does not submit a second copy of the document
with the confidential information deleted, FRA may assume that there is
no objection to public disclosure of the document in its entirety. FRA
retains the right to make its own determination with regard to any
claim of confidentiality. Notice of a decision by the FRA to deny a
claim of confidentiality, in whole or in part, and

an opportunity to respond shall be given to a person claiming
confidentiality of information no less than five days prior to its
public disclosure. FRA intends to address protection of confidential
information by any commission(s) formed to review submitted proposals
through the commission formation process. Respondents are welcome to
offer suggestions for managing confidential data along with their
proposals.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2016.
Sarah E. Feinberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-05866 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 45228]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18462]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Accredited Business Consolidators Corp.,
AsherXino Corp., Bakers Footwear Group, Inc., Card Activation
Technologies, Inc., High Plains Gas, Inc., and Pacific Copper Corp.;
Order of Suspension of Trading

 July 31, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Accredited Business Consolidators Corp. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
AsherXino Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended June 30, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended April 28, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Card Activation Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
High Plains Gas, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Pacific Copper Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended April 30, 2012.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on July 31, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 13, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18462 Filed 7-31-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28668-28669]
[DOCID:fr21my10-146]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold Closed Meetings on Tuesday, May 25,
2010 and Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 2 p.m., respectively.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meetings in a closed session, and determined that
no earlier notice of thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May
25, 2010 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    An adjudicatory matter; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
May 27, 2010 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Consideration of amicus participation; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have

been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 19, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12366 Filed 5-19-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51989-51990]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21128]

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

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 Numbers: RP12-936-000.

    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Price Index to be effective 9/8/2012.
    Filed Date: 8/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120809-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-940-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: 2012-08-13 NCs to be effective 8/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 8/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120813-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-942-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: 2012/08/14 NC Mieco, CIMA to be effective 8/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 8/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120814-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/12.

    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
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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 (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated August 15, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21128 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56928-56929]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER02-2001-000]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 15, 2021, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) requested confirmation of an ongoing extension of the
due date for the submission of a portion of PG&E's Electric Quarterly
Report data relating to bilateral contracts and transactions.\1\
Specifically, PG&E seeks confirmation of its practice of submitting
transaction information received from the California Independent System
Operator Corporation for a given quarter by the filing deadline for the
following quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission granted PG&E's market-based rate authority in
Docket No. ER03-198-000 effective December 19, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy

of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 5, 2021.

    Dated: October 6, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22228 Filed 10-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 From:
Elineth Torres/RTP/USEPA/US
 To:
Stuart Sessions<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tian H Liu<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Samudra Vijay/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
 Date:
08/06/2009 10:33 AM
 Subject:
Files for the ISIS_NESHAP

Good Morning,

Please find attached the NESHAP version of the EPA's ISIS Model.  I'm also attaching the steps for running the ISIS-Cement NESHAP version on your machine.  You will need to have GAMS/CPLEX on your machine to run the model.  Please save the attached "ISIS_NESHAP.zik" file on your computer, then change the extension from "zik" to "zip".  Once in the "ISIS_NESHAP" folder please notice that the results in the "ISIS_Outputs.xls' are those final results used in the Cement NESHAP analysis. Please save this file with another name on your machine so you can use it as reference if you need to do so.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact us.  Our contact information is:

Elineth Torres<EMAIL_ADDRESS>919-541-4347
Samudra Vijay<EMAIL_ADDRESS>919-541-1315

Thank you,

Elineth Torres
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. EPA
OAQPS/SPPD/Program Design Group
109 T.W. Alexander Dr.
Durham, NC 27711
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Note the attachments to this email are docketed separately with the Email E. Torres to K . Barnett ISIS Files for Docket dated August 6, 2009.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38311-38313]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 Reliability Technical Conference Agenda

Reliability Technical          Docket No. AD13-6-000
 Conference.
North American Electric        Docket No. RC11-6-004
 Reliability Corporation.
North American Electric        Docket No. RR13-2-000
 Reliability Corporation.
                               Not consolidated.

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on May 7,
2013, the Commission will hold a technical conference on Tuesday, July
9, 2013 from 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to discuss policy issues related to
the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. The agenda for this
conference is attached. Commission members will participate in this
conference.
    After the close of the conference, the Commission will accept
written comments regarding the matters discussed at the technical
conference. Any person or entity wishing to submit written comments
regarding the matters discussed at the conference should submit such
comments in Docket No. AD13-6-000, on or before August 8, 2013.
    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events
on the Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The
conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available
immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-
800-336-6646). A free webcast of this event is also available through
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to listen to this
event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and
locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to
the webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for
webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah
McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 19, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN13.000

Reliability Technical Conference
Commissioner-Led Reliability
Technical Conference
July 9, 2013,
8:45 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

8:45 a.m. Commissioners' Opening Remarks
9:00 a.m. Introductions--Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, Conference Chair

9:15 a.m. Panel I: State of Reliability and Emerging Issues

    Presentations: Panelists will be asked to address the state of
reliability, including NERC's May 2013 State of Reliability Report and
its findings with respect to the adequacy of Bulk-Power System
reliability. In addition, panelists will be invited to address related
issues that have affected or are expected to affect the state of
reliability going forward. Specifically, panelists will be asked to
address some or all of the following:
    a. What does the 2013 State of Reliability Report show about the
state of reliability? What metrics are most useful for measuring
reliability? Has NERC developed new or improved metrics over time? How
do the results in the 2013 Report compare to the results in the 2012
Report? How have NERC and the industry implemented recommendations from
the 2012 Report? What have been the lessons learned in implementing
last year's recommendations?
    b. What are the most critical issues affecting the state of
reliability today and what should NERC, the industry, and the
Commission do to address them? What trends have been identified with
respect to bulk electric system events that resulted in load loss,
e.g., protection system misoperations or equipment failures, and how
can the frequency of such events be reduced? How have NERC's event
analysis reports, lessons learned, and related documents contributed to
industry's understanding of common causes and solutions to prevent
similar events from occurring?
    c. Panelists will be asked to identify emerging issues that will
impact reliability, including cybersecurity and high impact low
frequency issues. This topic should not include issues covered by other
panels of this conference, but should address emerging issues and the
biggest challenges to addressing those issues. What long-term
objectives should NERC be pursuing, i.e., over the next five to ten
years, both internally, with respect to its own processes, and
externally, with respect to reliability objectives?

Panelists:

    1. Gerry W. Cauley, President and Chief Executive Officer, North
American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC)
    2. Tom Burgess, Vice President and Director of Reliability
Assessment and Performance Analysis, NERC
    3. Kevin Burke, Chairman, President and CEO, Consolidated Edison
Inc., on behalf of Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
    4. Allen Mosher, Vice President, Policy Analysis and Reliability
Standards, American Public Power Association
    5. The Honorable Todd Snitchler, Chairman, Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio, on behalf of National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners
    6. Peter Fraser, Managing Director, Regulatory Policy, Ontario
Energy Board

11:15 a.m. Break
11:30 a.m. Panel II: Continuing Evolution of NERC Enforcement and
Compliance Activities

    Presentations: NERC will be invited to provide an update on its
efforts to streamline its compliance and enforcement processes.
Panelists will be invited to express their views on NERC's progress in
these areas as well as recommendations moving forward. Specifically,
NERC and panelists will be asked to address some or all of the
following:
    a. What are the trends in compliance and enforcement of Reliability
Standards Requirements? Which are the Reliability Standards
Requirements most violated? In what way has implementation of the Find,
Fix, Track, and Report program enhanced reliability?
    b. What is the status of the NERC Reliability Assurance Initiative
(RAI) program? What progress has been made in developing criteria for
evaluating internal controls and risk assessments? How do NERC and the
Regional Entities plan to implement RAI? How will NERC ensure
consistency among the regions?

Panelists:

    1. Mark Rossi, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
NERC \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Gerry Cauley, President and Chief Executive Officer of NERC,
may also participate in the panel discussions for Panels II, III,
and IV, but will not present any formal remarks on behalf of NERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Joseph T. Kelliher, Executive Vice President for Federal
Regulatory Affairs, NextEra Energy, Inc., on behalf of EEI
    3. Barry Lawson, Associate Director, Power Delivery and Reliability
Government Relations, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
    4. William J. Gallagher, Special Projects Chief, Vermont Public
Power Supply Authority, on behalf of Transmission Access Policy Study
Group
    5. Stacy Dochoda, President and CEO, Florida Reliability
Coordinating Council and 2013 Chair Regional Entity Management Group

12:45 p.m. Lunch
1:30 p.m. Panel III: NERC Standards Development Process and Priorities

    Presentations: Panelists will be asked to address NERC's standards
development process, the status of that process, and various
initiatives to improve the timeliness, substance, and prioritization of
issues. Panelists may suggest improvements in both the process and
overall approach to standards development. NERC and panelists will be
asked to address some or all of the following:
    a. What is the status of NERC's efforts to improve NERC's standards
development process, including the quality and timeliness of standards?
What are the primary deficiencies in the current standards development
process and how are they being addressed? Are there changes in the
Commission's processes that the Commission should consider?
    b. Please provide an update on the role of various initiatives to
improve the standards development process and priorities (e.g.,
Reliability Issues Steering Committee, Standards Oversight Project
Group, and ``P 81'' efforts). How are they working and is there room
for further improvement.
    c. What is the status and progress of NERC's Cost Effective
Analysis Process in introducing cost considerations and effectiveness
into the development of new and revised standards?
    d. What can the North American Transmission Forum do to inform the
standards development process? What is the role of the North American
Transmission Forum in identifying and communicating lessons learned to
NERC, the Commission, and industry?

Panelists:

    1. Mark Lauby, Vice President and Director of Standards, NERC
    2. Jeffery J. Gust, Vice President, Compliance and Standards,
MidAmerican Energy Company, on behalf of EEI
    3. John A. Anderson, President & CEO, Electricity Consumers
Resource Council
    4. Brian Murphy, Chair of NERC Standards Committee; Manager, NERC
Reliability Standards, NextEra Energy, Inc
    5. Christine Schwab, Chair of NERC Reliability Issues Steering
Committee; Vice President and Chief Compliance and Risk Officer,
Dominion Resources Services
    6. Thomas J. Galloway, President and Chief Executive Officer, North
American Transmission Forum

2:45 p.m. Break
3:00 p.m. Panel IV: Other Issues

    Presentations: Panelists will be asked to address the following
issues:

    a. What approaches are being taken by the industry, ISOs, and other
system planners to address the continued changes in projected resource
mix resulting from Environmental Protection Agency rules and, among
other things, recent trends in natural gas prices? How are regulators,
system planners, and industry participants identifying and responding
to potential changes in the generation resource mix or in capacity
reserve levels due to retirement of aging or other non-economically
viable plants? Which regions are expected to be most affected by
retirement of coal plants or other changes in resource mix, and how are
those regions responding? How are regions accommodating outages
necessitated by generator retrofits?
    b. What is the status of implementation (in the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council Region and in the other regions) of the
recommendations made or lessons learned in the September 8, 2011
Southwest blackout and from the February 2011 cold weather outages? The
purpose of this panel is not to discuss any ongoing investigation but
to address what steps are being taken to ensure that the lessons
learned are being implemented and are not lost over time. Also, what
have been the primary obstacles in implementing the changes recommended
in the NERC/FERC blackout reports issued in response to these outages?

Panelists:

    1. David Souder, Director Operations Planning, PJM Interconnection
    2. John Lawhorn, Senior Director, Policy and Economic Study,
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    3. Jeff Burleson, Vice President, System Planning, Southern Company
    4. Joel Beauvais, Associate Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency
    5. Melanie M. Frye, Vice President, Operations and Planning,
Western Electric Coordinating Council
    6. Michael Moon, Senior Director of Reliability Risk Management,
NERC

4:30 p.m. Commissioner Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. 2013-15185 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58790-58791]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26898]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0500; FRL-9971-71-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Stationary Sources Emissions
Monitoring; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the
comment period for a proposed rulemaking notice published in the
Federal Register on October 13, 2017, which accompanied a direct final
rulemaking published on the same date. The direct final rulemaking has
been withdrawn due to the receipt of an adverse comment. In the October
13, 2017, proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve a portion of a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) on February 1, 2017, for the purpose of revising Florida's
requirements and procedures for emissions monitoring at stationary
sources. Additionally, the October 13, 2017, document included a
proposed correction to remove a Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)
rule that was previously approved for removal from the SIP in a
separate action but was never removed. It was brought to EPA's
attention that the February 1, 2017, state submittals and related
materials were not accessible to the public through the electronic
docket. The materials are now accessible in the electronic docket. EPA
is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published October 13,
2017 (82 FR 47662), reopened. Comments must be received on or before
January 16, 2018. In a future final action based on the proposed rule,
EPA will address all public comments received, including the adverse
comment received on the direct final rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0500 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a proposed rulemaking on
October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47662), which accompanied a direct final
rulemaking published on the same date (82 FR 47636). The proposed
revision includes amendments to three F.A.C. rule sections, as well as
the removal of one F.A.C. rule section from the Florida SIP, in order
to eliminate redundant language and make updates to the requirements
for emissions monitoring

at stationary sources. Additionally, the October 13, 2017, proposed
rulemaking included a correction to remove an additional F.A.C. rule
that was previously approved for removal from the SIP in a separate
action but was never removed. It was brought to EPA's attention that
the February 1, 2017, state submittals and related materials were not
accessible to the public through the electronic docket. The materials
are now accessible in the electronic docket. EPA is reopening the
comment period for an additional 30 days.

    Dated: November 21, 2017.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-26898 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P