TCEQ conducted model performance analysis of this level with both the base inventory and then with the HRVOC imputed inventory in order to support that the HRVOC imputed inventory was actually an improvement in the modeling. We will continue to encourage TCEQ to investigate OVOCs in the development of their future HGB SIPs. A separate study by Yarwood ( H6E. 2002 report) cited in our TSD included analysis showing that the Olefin to NOx imputing factor that TCEQ utilized produces approximately the correct amount of reactivity in the model. The olefin to NOx adjustment was applied only after a large body of peer reviewed research showed conclusively that such a discrepancy affected emissions of certain HRVOCs from industrial sources. The bibliography included in TCEQ's TSD includes a list of many of the peer reviewed studies considered by TCEQ and reviewed by EPA.

In TCEQ's response to comments on their HGB proposal in June 2004 they agreed that there is some evidence that OVOCs may be underestimated in the modeling inventory, but the evidence to justify adjusting emissions of OVOC is much less conclusive and open to debate.

TCEQ's response continued, that at that time, few in depth analyses of aircraft observations had been conducted comparing OVOC concentrations with those expected based on the reported emissions. The TCEQ compared ambient concentrations of OVOC with the reported inventories at the Clinton Drive and Deer Park monitoring locations and used this data to conduct the OVOC modeling sensitivity. The study suggested that OVOC may be 76 underreported by a factor of 4.8. The scope of this study was limited however, because in 2004 only these two TCEQ sites had collected continuous, multi year speciated hydrocarbon data in the Ship Channel industrial district. We encourage TCEQ to continue to evaluate the Auto GC data and utilize the data in developing future SIPs.

Based on our comments above on the need for a full base case model performance to justify the OVOC adjustment as an improvement in the modeling, we do not concur with commenter's comment that the future year model predictions with additional OVOCs included are of enough concern that EPA should not approve these SIP revisions. The future year sensitivity modeling is speculative and the base modeling was not verified to actually be a better performing modeling system with the OVOC imputation.

In TCEQ's response to comments on their June 2004 proposal, they indicated that if the OVOC emissions are indeed underestimated substantially, then additional reductions may be necessary. We encourage TCEQ to continue to evaluate OVOCs in their development of the 8

hour SIP for HGB.

Comment M10: The commenter ( Wilson) commented that the 8 hour ozone non interference demonstration is inadequate and biased, and that furthermore, may be based on a faulty emissions inventory since OVOCs were not adjusted and errors in simulating the CS 2001 control strategy occurred. The commenter concludes that EPA must find that the noninterference demonstration is inadequate and disapprove the relaxation of control measures that if kept, could contribute to progress towards attaining the 8 hour standard. 77 The commenter continues that the 8 hour modeling results presented in TCEQ's TSD shows that the proposed 1 hour strategy falls short of making reasonable progress towards 8

hour attainment. The commenter continues that the plan backslides in comparison to the 2001 approved plan because six of the 16 monitors show higher 8 hour Design Values and the area of exceedances is larger on 6 of the 10 days with the new SIP revisions. The commenter also comments the average of the relative reduction factors is essentially unchanged ( 0.7 percent lower after implementation of the proposed control strategy as compared to the EPA approved control strategy) and that significant additional reductions will be necessary to attain the 8 hour ozone standard.

The commenter indicated that in addition to excluding the analysis of adjustments to the OVOC inventory, the TCEQ made a number of other assumptions that tend to bias the noninterference demonstration in favor of the proposed control strategy.

The commenter indicated that the use of updated activity data as the basis for the CS

2001 may add as much as 20 tpd more NOx than would be allowed by the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve. The commenter did recognize that TCEQ had made several technical updates by using Mobile 6 that were acceptable. The commenter commented that a 13 percent increase in VMT that was included for the 2000 motor vehicle emissions budget ( MVEB) should have been restricted to the old VMT and that the inclusion of the additional VMT is inappropriate. The commenter continued that they were concerned with the use of a revised/ updated 2007 Traffic Demand Model as the basis for the CS 2001 inventory because this included the new activity data, which results in as much as 20 tpd. The commenter 78 continued that the old activity data should be used unless EPA approves a new MVEB.

The commenter indicated that if EPA approves the use of updated activity data for the baseline model, then the MVEB is not a binding constraint . The commenter urged EPA to reconsider our guidance on the noninterference test and conduct our own analysis in a manner consistent with their comments.

Response M10: EPA disagrees with the assertion that the non interference demonstration is inadequate and biased, and that it represents backsliding. As indicated in more detail in the proposal notice and TSD for this action, it was our observation that while individual monitors may have increases in ozone, overall the modeling metrics indicated either an even benefit or a slight increased benefit for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. EPA gave the State guidance that noninterference and equivalence can be demonstrated by showing through an air quality analysis,

that the new strategy will not create more 8 hour ozone exceedances, higher 8 hour ozone concentrations, or higher cumulative exposure levels than the old strategy.

The 8 hour demonstration process uses the model in a relative sense using Relative Reduction Factors ( RRFs), so 8 hour modeling may show attainment with RRF analysis but still have grid cells over the standard in the model predictions. The results indicated that CS 08 is slightly more effective in reducing 8 hour ozone levels than CS 2001 in both average relative reduction factor ( 0.931 vs. 0.940) and in future design value ( 107 v. s. 108 ppb), even though some stations fare slightly worse under the new control strategy as the commenter indicated. In weighting the 110( l) analysis, the closest thing to the attainment test is the change in RRFs and 79 the change in Future design values between the old and new strategies. This is the brightest line test, so a reduction in these is a good indicator of non interference. For most of the design values, they decrease with the new strategy ( See Table I 3 on page 76 of EPA's TSD). It is also important to realize that all of the higher design values (> 95 ppb) decrease with the new strategy and with the exception of the Bayland Park ( BAYP) monitor ( which dropped 1 ppb),

they dropped a significant value ( 5 8 ppb).

In addition, for both peak 8 hour ozone concentration and exposure metrics, benefits of the new strategy exceed those of the old strategy for every day that was modeled except September 6,

where the old strategy performs slightly better. For the area of exceedance however, the comparison is less clear cut. As the commenter indicated for area of exceedance, the older strategy shows more of a benefit on six of ten days and the new strategy shows a greater benefit on three days and on one day both strategies are equivalent. Even though more grid cell area per day were predicted to be in nonattainment, when the level of ozone above nonattainment was weighted with the grid cells predicted to be in nonattainment, the ozone exposure metric showed improvement for the majority of the days. EPA's guidance for demonstrating attainment for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS is to use the RRFs average for all the days that monitors had elevated ozone. So even though some days had larger exceedance areas, the ability to attain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS will be more heavily weighted by the change in the average RRFs and the monitors with the higher design values. Although there are uncertainties with comparing the modeled results of the two strategies, EPA believes that the new strategy and the old strategy are at least equivalent in overall 8 hour ozone benefit with the new strategy slightly more effective in reducing the peak ozone values and the old strategy slightly more 80 effective in reducing the area of exceedance. In summary, both the Future design values and RRFs are lower for the new strategy ( especially for the higher design values that will be critical in future 8 hour attainment SIP development). Furthermore, two of the three ozone metrics showed improvement with the new strategy. Taking all of these metrics into consideration and recognizing the uncertainties in the modeling, we believe that Texas has demonstrated that the new strategy will not interfere with attainment of the 8 hour standard.

The EPA agrees that a different mix of control measures may be necessary to reach attainment of the 8 hour ozone standard and the State will need to address this in their 8 hour ozone attainment SIP that is due in June 2007. At that same time, the State will need to submit its " reasonable progress" SIP for the 8 hour standard. As discussed previously in the response to comment for M9 comment, EPA determined that the Emission Inventory utilized for this attainment demonstration modeling was acceptable. EPA ultimately agreed with TCEQ that there was not enough data and studies on OVOCs to warrant imputing the inventory for OVOCs. Therefore, it would not have been reasonable to make a OVOC adjustment in the 110( l) analysis.

TCEQ discussed with EPA the best approach to making this demonstration. One of the key issues of concern in conducting it was the fact that the photochemical modeling is now based on an improved August September 2000 ozone episode rather than the older September 1993 ozone episode on which the December 2000 SIP was based. Recognizing that this was a major change since 2000, the noninterference modeling included the control strategies listed in the December 2000 SIP together with updated inventories and updated methodologies utilizing 81 the 2000 episode.

The commenter emphasized that the December 2000 SIP MVEB placed a " binding constraint" on how any CS 2000 onroad inventory should be developed. It was also suggested that the CS 2000 inventory should have coupled updated MOBILE6 based emission rates with the old VMT and other associated activity data from the December 2000 MVEB. This suggestion is impractical because an onroad emissions inventory which becomes an MVEB is a combination of both emission rates ( from the MOBILE emissions model) and activity data ( from a travel demand model). EPA concurs with the method that TCEQ conducted the VMT and MVEB for this 110( l) analysis.

The 2007 on road inventory that was developed for the December 2000 SIP included an estimate of 129.4 million VMT from the Houston Galveston Area Council's ( HGAC) travel demand modeling. Since that time, new travel networks, demographic data, census data, etc.

inputs have been added to HGAC's travel demand modeling process, and the updated 2007 onroad inventory was developed, 146 million VMT is the best available estimate of 2007 activity levels. This inventory was developed by following EPA's memo entitled " Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity", dated January 18,

2002, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ m6. htm.

The test that EPA has to apply to this SIP revision is that the revisions demonstrate attainment with the 1 hour ozone standard in 2007 and that the revisions will not interfere with any other applicable CAA standard ( including 8 hour ozone). EPA is approving these revisions 82 and the revised motor vehicle emission budget in this action.

Comment M11: The commenter ( Wilson) commented that the emissions estimates for heavy duty trucks do not use the best available information and cites a memo from Rick Baker of ERG to Hazel Barbour ( TCEQ) dated August 30, 2003 that indicates the 2007 mobile inventory may be underestimated by up to 3.7 tpd of NOx due to heavy duty trucks not being reflashed. The commenter also noted that as of November 2004, only 12.7 percent of the applicable trucks nationally had been reflashed. The commenter also commented that the EPA default " reflash" rate of 90 percent for heavy duty diesel trucks was inappropriate for use in development of the 2007 on road emissions inventory.

Response M11: The commenter is correct in noting that under a 1998 consent decree with EPA, manufacturers of diesel truck engines are required to install software upgrades ( reflash) to engines they sold between 1993 and 1998 with " defeat devices" that resulted in higher NOx emissions than allowed by applicable certification standards. All States except California are required to use the latest available version of EPA's MOBILE emissions model for on road SIP inventory development purposes. In addition, States are encouraged to use EPA guidance when using the MOBILE model for SIP purposes. The latest version of the MOBILE6.2 User's Guide ( dated August 14, 2003) can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ m6. htm. The User's Guide indicates that a default effectiveness rate of 90 percent should be used, unless good local data is available.

While the commenter is correct that some local data with estimates of how many trucks 83 had been reflashed in 2002 and nationally in 2004 exists, the consent decree still requires all the trucks to be reflashed by 2008. With the compliance date of 2008 for the consent decree, EPA has not changed the recommended default value of 90 percent for 2007. While reflash rates may have been slow and below expected levels in 2002 and 2004, the flash rate did increase from 2 percent in 2002 to 12 percent in 2004 according to the comment. Furthermore, EPA still expects the consent decree to be met in 2008, so a high compliance rate in 2007 is thought to be an appropriate estimate. TCEQ modeled 2007 emissions with the EPA recommended default rate of 90 percent reflash rate and decided to utilize EPA defaults. EPA concurred at the time that this was an acceptable assumption. Furthermore in March 2006, EPA issued a letter to TCEQ confirming that for the 8 hr ozone SIP, that TCEQ could use EPA defaults for the MOBILE emission estimates for the truck population subject to the reflash requirement.

Comment M12: The commenter ( Wilson) commented that the TCEQ has not revised off road and area emissions to account for operations of two permitted container and cruise ship port facilities. The commenter indicated that they did not believe the current SIP revision fully accounts for operating emissions related to the rapid growth in port facilities in the Houston region including ship, train and truck emissions that would also increase as a result of the port activity. The commenter asks EPA to evaluate whether these ports and the associated growth emissions were included in the proposed SIP revision.

Response M12: The projected 2007 shipping inventory explicitly accounts for traffic to/ from the new Bayport container and cruise terminals. The shipping inventory does not account for the Texas City container terminal, which was approved long after the current inventory was 84 developed. However, even though the facility plans to open in 2006, the level of activity through 2007 will likely be fairly modest. The TCEQ plans to revise its shipping inventory to include emissions associated with this new port in future modeling work.

Future ship and train emissions are normally accounted for by growth factors developed by applying econometric growth forecasts as was done in this case. During EPA's review of the Bayport Draft EIS's, we reviewed the estimated emissions from increased ship traffic from the new ports and the total was less than the growth amount in tpd of NOx that TCEQ had included for 2007 modeling in this SIP.

TCEQ estimated train emissions by growing the area wide inventory according to projected trends. Because there is insufficient information available to allocate emissions of locomotives to specific track segments, the growth was spread across all the track miles in the 8 county area equally. TCEQ has a project to improve Texas locomotive emissions and it's results should be added to the model for the 8 hour SIP.

Truck emissions are based on travel demand modeling conducted by HGAC, which included the Bayport and Texas City terminals in the 2007 inventories it generated for TCEQ's future case modeling.

Comment M13: The commenter ( Wilson) indicates that TCEQ continues to claim credit for emission reductions from the institution of Federal DOE standards on certain appliances even though TCEQ has dropped these measures from their attainment modeling. The commenter 85 states that if these measures have been dropped, then EPA should provide a reference for this change.

Response M13: In the previous SIP, TCEQ had included the DOE energy efficiency benefits as a gap measure but had not modeled the reductions. The HGB area is part of a NOx Cap and Trade program and any reductions due to increases in energy efficiency, including federal appliance energy efficiency programs, could help utilities maintain their cap and might not yield actual reductions to the HGB airshed. While federal ( DOE) appliance energy efficiency programs still exist, TCEQ has dropped taking credit for these programs in this SIP revision because of the HGB Cap and Trade program. TCEQ did not include any potential emission reductions in this SIP revision that may occur for other areas of Texas from DOE appliance energy efficiency programs.

Comment M14: The commenter indicates that EPA should not approve a plan that fails to require industry to reduce emissions of OVOCs. The commenter refers to the comment on OVOC modeling sensitivity to substantiate their comment. Furthermore, the commenter refers to presentations by TCEQ and a report by TCEQ indicating that large amounts of VOC reactivity from OVOC and HRVOCs could yield ozone based on analysis of Auto gas chromatographs that are not part of the chemicals compounds covered by the HRVOC rules.

The presentations and reports indicated were: John R. Jolly, Fernando I. Mercado, and David W. Sullivan, " A Comparison of Ambient and Emissions VOC to NOx Ratios at Two Monitors in Houston, Texas" ( Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, June 2004). Mark Estes et al, " Analysis of Automated Gas Chromatograph Data from 1996 2001 to Determine VOCs with 86 Largest Ozone Formation Potential" ( TCEQ Technical Support Document Attachment 6,

December 2002). Mark Estes, " VOC Reactivity Before, During and After TexAQS 2000"

( Presentation to TexAQS Science Meeting, February 2004). John Jolly and Elaine Schroeder,

" Analysis of HGB Enhanced Industry Sponsored Monitoring ( EISM) Data" ( Presentation to EISM Network Stakeholder Meeting, as updated April 2004). John Jolly et al, " An Analysis of VOC Reactivity in Houston" ( TCEQ SIP Technical Support Document Appendix GG, January 23, 2004).

Response M14: See Response to Comment M9 for EPA's comments on the analysis of sensitivity modeling of OVOCs. EPA is approving this package because it has demonstrated that the area will attain the 1 hour ozone standard by November 15, 2007 and that no additional reductions were determined to be needed by TCEQ. EPA had previously reviewed the presentations and reports that the commenter refers to in their comment, prior to our proposed action on these SIP revisions. These studies do suggest that more information is needed on the imputing of OVOCs, but they do not in and of themselves provide enough of a technical basis to take action on imputing OVOCs at this time. EPA encourages TCEQ to continue to evaluate OVOCs and other HRVOCs and consider regulating sources of these chemical compounds if modeling indicates that their control is necessary for attainment of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS.

Comment M15a: The commenter indicates that EPA cannot assume the level of control effectiveness claimed by the TCEQ for regulating HRVOCs. The commenter indicates that TCEQ failed to provide an estimate of rule effectiveness that takes into account that the sources it regulates may not sufficiently encompass the major sources of HRVOCs, and to address the 87 specific challenges of enforcement and implementation. The commenter continued that TCEQ did not consider evaporative emissions from rail tank cars and fugitive emissions from above ground and underground pipelines carrying petroleum products and from barges.

Response M15a: Aircraft flights and other monitoring during and since the TexAQS 2000 study have indicated a significant under reporting of emissions of HRVOCs that are emitted primarily from industrial sources. As previously discussed in our proposed approval notice ( 70 FR 58119) and the TSD, EPA believes that the field data collected in 2000 and since indicates that rule effectiveness has been previously overestimated for sources of HRVOCs. TCEQ significantly increased the basecase 2000 inventory for industrial sources of HRVOC by imputing the inventory to correct for the over estimation of rule effectiveness and to bring the 2000 HRVOC rule effectiveness estimate in line with the available ambient data that has been collected. EPA believes TCEQ's adjustment to the basecase inventory is appropriate based on the information available. TCEQ then adopted HRVOC rules to reduce emissions of HRVOCs and put in place additional monitoring to maintain compliance with the new limits on HRVOCs.

Because of these changes by TCEQ, EPA finds that rule effectiveness is adequate for the HRVOC program.

Having identified that HRVOC's need to be reduced, as discussed elsewhere, TCEQ adopted rules for the control of HRVOC's. As discussed elsewhere, TCEQ has implemented an annual HRVOC cap to reduce emissions of HRVOCs. TCEQ reduced the annual HRVOC cap levels that were set in the regulations by 5 percent compared to modeled levels in setting the HRVOC annual cap limits in part to address rule effectiveness and emission characterization 88 concerns regarding daily variability in emissions and geographical variability of location of emissions. These HRVOC rules also incorporated stronger monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting than previous versions of rules for the control of VOCs. Therefore EPA believes that future rule effectiveness will be much improved over the past.

Specifically, TCEQ now requires direct continuous measurement of flow and heating value of the flow to flares, which is a vast improvement over the past practice using engineering estimates and one time tests. TCEQ also requires monitoring of flow and concentration to cooling towers giving a direct measurement of emissions. When direct measurements are used,

no rule effectiveness adjustment is necessary. Finally for fugitive emissions, TCEQ is requiring third party audits that will be used to confirm that the expected rule effectiveness has been achieved for the leak detection and repair program. TCEQ has agreed to utilize the available data, including the first third party audits, to conduct a rule effectiveness study in 2006 and include this analysis in development of future SIPs.

EPA believes that certain past practices are being improved to reduce the uncertainty of the estimates. In particular, the uncertainty introduced by certain assumptions of control efficiency and rule effectiveness is being improved. This approach of reassessing rule effectiveness when additional data is available is consistent with EPA's guidance on how to address rule effectiveness ( EPA memo on rule effectiveness from Sally Shaver dated April 27,

1995; and guidance document EPA 452/ 4 94 001, RULE EFFECTIVENESS GUIDANCE:

INTEGRATION OF INVENTORY, COMPLIANCE, AND ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS). EPA is approving the emission reductions that have been projected for the 89 improved fugitive emissions rules because the new measurement and monitoring requirements in the adopted rule will result in significantly improved accuracy. In addition, Texas has committed to perform a rule effectiveness study and use improved emission inventory techniques to estimate future emissions and confirm the effectiveness of the program.

It is EPA's position that VOC emissions and some HRVOC emissions could occur from the sources that the commenter mentions and are outside the traditional TCEQ regulatory field ( evaporative emissions from rail cars in transit, barges in transit, pipelines, etc.). TCEQ has followed EPA guidelines in estimating emissions from these sources in development of the Emission Inventory for this revision. The initial field monitoring data that indicated these may be areas underestimated by traditional EPA guidelines was only starting to be available in 2003 2004 time frame as TCEQ was developing this revision. At the time TCEQ was developing this revision, there was not a sufficient body of data to allow for any estimation of the level of emissions that may exist from these sources that are not in the inventory currently.

EPA believes that the inventory reflects the best estimate of emissions that was possible at the time. Inventory analysis is always an ongoing process that is constantly needing to be improved. TCEQ will continue to investigate and improve emission estimates. Furthermore,

the investigation into these potential sources of error in the emission inventory will lead to better science and planning of effective control packages to attain the 8 hour standard. We encourage TCEQ and others to continue to use imaging devices and other technologies to help refine emission inventories.

Comment M15b: The commenter indicated that they were concerned with HRVOC fugitive 90 rules for leak monitoring that seem to place determination of the threshold with the source under TCEQ rules section 115.781( f). The commenter felt that the rules should specifically state that TCEQ retains the discretion to determine monitoring intervals.

The commenter indicated that EPA should not approve backsliding on the fugitive rules for facilities not in HRVOC service in the Houston region. The commenter further expressed concern that inspectors and enforcement actions would be hindered by the removal of language on: ( 1) specifying the procedure that must be used to demonstrate that leaking components cannot be repaired without a process unit shutdown, ( 2) specifying the requirements for undertaking extraordinary efforts to control leaks, ( 3) requiring the use of electronic data collection devices during monitoring, use of an electronic database, and documentation of an auditing process to assure proper calibration, identify response time failures, and assess pace anomalies. These changes were in changes in Texas regulations section 115.352 and 115.354.

Response M15b: EPA disagrees with the assertion from the commenter that TCEQ rules section 115.78( f) and other parts of the new HRVOC rules place determination of threshold with the source. The rules ( section 115.788 ( a d)) require third party audits of the HRVOC monitoring at a facility, including 115.78( f) requirements to be conducted and submitted to TCEQ. If these third party audits raise deficiencies, section 115.788( e) requires the source to submit a corrective action plan to TCEQ. Furthermore, Texas rules section 115.788( f) allows for TCEQ and EPA to conduct audits. Upon review of audit results, Texas rules section 115.788( h) allow the TCEQ to specify additional corrective actions. Therefore, EPA believes that TCEQ retains authority to determine compliance with section 115 HRVOC rules, including 91 section 115.78( f).

The commenter is correct that some of the minor rule changes on sources in fugitive service may be considered a relaxation of previous Texas regulations ( 115.352 and 115.354),

but all three changes identified were changes that Texas has made to rules they previously adopted at the state level in 2002. The rules that were changed were never approved into the federal SIP. Therefore these changes are not a relaxation of the federally approved SIP. Many other changes to regulation 115, regarding VOC controls, strengthen the SIP and are considered in the more detail in our TSD. EPA disagrees with the commenter and does not consider this a backsliding issue of federally approved measures.

Comment M15c: The commenter concerns about flare efficiency related to too much air or steam assist and high winds, and questioned what impact these factors can have on a flare's destruction efficiency. The commenter indicated that EPA should not approve rule language that may discourage research and application of monitoring technology to verify destruction efficiencies or the use of remote technology to determine destruction efficiencies.

Response M15c: We are approving the estimates used for flare destruction efficiency because the estimates are based on the best scientific information available. Like the commenter, we are concerned by the uncertainty introduced by having a significant source of emissions which cannot be directly measured. We also share concerns that several factors can potentially impact flare destruction efficiency, including wind speed and volumes to the flare as well as how it is operated, but the current estimates are based on the best information available at the time 92 these SIP revisions were completed. We believe Texas should strongly consider requirements for monitoring steam and air assist ratios to insure that operators maintain these parameters in a range to insure optimum combustion. We also encourage TCEQ to pursue new technology such as the Fourier Transform Infra red Spectrophotometer to eventually be able to directly measure destruction efficiency in the field.

Comment M15d: The commenter indicated that EPA should evaluate if interlock devices that regulate the ratio of air ( or steam) should be considered reasonably available control measures ( RACM), and that EPA should not approve this SIP unless TCEQ develops regulations requiring the use of interlock devices.

Response M15d: We covered the changes to TCEQ's previously approved RACM in detail in the proposal ( 70 FR 58119) and TSD. EPA determined that all reasonably available control measures were being implemented in the Houston area. In section II. a. of the TSD ( pages 51 56), we discuss EPA's analysis that the revised plan will achieve attainment of the one hour standard, based the controls that will be in place by the ozone season of 2007. As part of the RACM analysis we estimated that to advance attainment more than 39 tpd of additional NOx emission reductions would have to be achieved before the ozone season of 2006. EPA guidance is that a justification would need to support that a measure was not reasonably available for that area and could be based on technological or economic grounds.

The commenter indicated that EPA should consider requiring interlock devices as RACM. The commenter did not provide a potential quantification of how much emission 93 reductions such a requirement would create nor how such a measure would result in ozone reductions such that attainment could be achieved earlier than 2007. It is not clear that even if such a requirement existed that it would result in enough emission reductions to advance attainment. Furthermore, the comment on the use of interlock devices was not made during TCEQ's development of these rules in 2004 and the first time this issue has been raised was in the commenter's letter to EPA received in November 2005. Even if the interlock devices could result in enough reductions, it would not have been possible for TCEQ to implement a rule requiring the use of interlock devices and for the applicable sources to achieve compliance with a interlock rule by the beginning of the 2006 ozone season. TCEQ rule development alone typically requires at least 9 12 months, so just the rule development timing would have made it impossible to advance attainment. Since attainment could not be advanced, EPA does not consider a requirement for the use of interlock devices to be a potential RACM measure. EPA does strongly encourage TCEQ to consider the use of interlock devices in the development of the 8 hour attainment demonstration for HGB.

Comment M16: The commenter indicates that EPA should discount any emission reduction benefit from the Environmental Monitoring Response System ( EMRS). The commenter cited a comment from the TSD for this action indicating that EPA " believes the added scrutiny of ambient VOC levels will provide feedback to industry on the activities that may be causing increased VOC emissions resulting in improved overall program effectiveness and possibly identifying previously unknown sources of emissions." The commenter then commented that TCEQ had recently reported that the goal of stopping HRVOC events in real time can not be achieved with EMRS. The commenter concludes that EPA should not find that the EMRS 94 system will result in emission reductions which have not been accounted for in the model.

Response M16: EPA was aware that TCEQ was trying to stop HRVOC events in real time with the EMRS. During the proposal and development of the EMRS program and to this date,

we were skeptical that this could be done considering the meteorology and density of sources in wind sectors around the monitors. We do think that the data and continued focus on what compounds are emitted and alerting the sources is a worthwhile project and should continue to aid in finding new sources or issues that will improve the understanding of ozone formation and exceedances in the HGB area. We do think that it will also be a tool to help determine what facilities or group of facilities should be evaluated further in solving HGB's air quality issues.

Comment M17: The commenter indicates that EPA should not approve the NOx emission reduction relaxations as these changes will be needed for further progress on the 8 hour.

The commenter commented that in at least one case the ESAD level adopted by Texas was higher than required by California. The commenter indicated that the California standard was for gas fired utility boilers with a capacity greater than 100 mmBtu/ Hr is 0.02 0.03 lbs/ mmBtu, whereas the Texas standard is 0.03 lb/ mmBtu. The commenter continues that TCEQ should provide an evaluation for each difference in ESADs that are being changed with these NOx MECT revisions and explain why the lower ESAD was not utilized and until this is completed EPA should not approve these revisions. 95 Response M17: EPA has reviewed this SIP revision package and determined that the package demonstrates attainment of the 1 hour ozone NAAQS. As explained above, this submission was not for the purpose of addressing reasonable further progress forward and attainment of the 8 hour NAAQS. Texas is undertaking a significant and intense new air study ( TexAQS II) in HGB. With this new information coming in and new 8 hour modeling taking place it is to early to determine what the appropriate suite of control measures will be for 8 hour attainment.

TCEQ is in the process of developing the 8 hour demonstrations which are due to EPA on June 15, 2007.

EPA reviewed the RACM levels as discussed in a previous response and in the TSD for this action. The Texas standard is within the range ( although on the high end) of the ESAD for the California rule and was reviewed prior to proposal and determined to be acceptable for RACM. EPA conducted a review of the changes to ESAD levels and documented California levels for each source category and Texas 90 percent and 80 percent in Table 6. B 1 of the TSD and determined the levels to be acceptable. Furthermore, as indicated in a previous response there are no additional measures that could be implemented to advance the attainment date sooner than the current attainment date in 2007. 96 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a " significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason and because this action will not have a significant,

adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Public Law 104 4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 97 the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note), EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 98 States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S.

Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. section 804( 2).

Under section 307( b)( 1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [ FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307( b)( 2).) 99 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: August 24, 2006 Richard E. Greene,

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 100 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52  [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS   Texas 2. Section 52.2270 is amended as follows:

a. The table in paragraph ( c) entitled " EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP" is amended as follows:

1. By revising entries for Sections 114.1 and 114.2 under Chapter 114 ( Reg 4),

Subchapter A.

2. By revising the heading entitled " Subchapter B: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance" under Chapter 114 ( Reg 4) to read " Subchapter C   Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance; Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program; and Early Action Compact Counties"; adding a new centered heading " Division 1: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance" immediately following it; revising entries for Sections 114.50, 114.52, and 114.53; and removing the heading entitled " Subchapter C

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance; Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program; and Early Action Compact Counties" that follows Section 114.53.

3. By removing the heading entitled " Division 6: Lawn Service Equipment Operating Restrictions" under Chapter 114 ( Reg 4), Subchapter I; and removing entries for Sections 114.452 and 114.459.

4. By removing the heading entitled " Division 1: Motor Vehicle Idling 101 Limitations" under Chapter 114 ( Reg 4), Subchapter J; and removing entries for Sections 114.500, 114.502, 114.507, and 114.509.

5. By revising the heading entitled " Chapter 117 ( Reg 7)   Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds   Subchapter A" to read " Chapter 117 ( Reg 7)

Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds"; adding a centered heading entitled " Subchapter A   Definitions" immediately following it; and revising the entry for Section 117.10.

6. By revising the heading entitled " Subchapter B   Division 1   Utility Electric Generation in Ozone Nonattainment Areas" under Chapter 117 ( Reg 7) to read " Subchapter B   Combustion at Major Sources"; adding a centered heading entitled " Division 1: Utility Electric Generation in Ozone Nonattainment Areas" immediately following it;

removing the entry for 117.104; and revising entries for Sections 117.105  117.108, 117.113

117.116, 117.119, 117.131, 117.135, 117.138, 117.141, 117.143, 117.149, 117.203, 117.205

117.207, 117.213  117.216, 117.219, and 117.223.

7. By revising the heading entitled " Subchapter C   Division 1   ADIPIC Acid Manufacturing" under Chapter 117 ( Reg 7) to read " Subchapter C   Acid Manufacturing";

adding a centered heading entitled " Division 1: ADIPIC Acid Manufacturing" immediately following it; and revising entries for Sections 117.301, 117.309, 117.311, 117.313, 117.319,

117.321, 117.401, 117.409, 117.411, 117.413, 117.419, and 117.421.

8. By revising the heading entitled " Subchapter D   Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters" under Chapter 117 ( Reg 7) to read " Subchapter D   Small Combustion Sources"; adding a new centered heading " Division 1: Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters" immediately following it; adding a new centered heading 102 " Division 2: Boilers, Process Heaters, and Stationary Engines and Gas Turbines at Minor Sources" immediately preceding the entry for Section 117.471; and revising entries for 117.463,

117.465, 117.473, 117.475, 117.478, and 117.479.

9. By removing entries for Section 117.540 and 117.560 under Chapter 117 ( Reg 7), Subchapter E; and revising entries for 117.510, 117.512, 117.520, and 117.534.

b. The second table in paragraph ( e) entitled " EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP" is amended by adding a new entry at the end to read as follows:

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

( c) * * *

EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP State Citation Title/ subject State approval/ submittal date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * *

Chapter 114 ( Reg 4)   Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles Subchapter A   Definitions Section 114.1 Definitions. 09/ 05/ 04 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 114.2 Inspection and Maintenance Definitions. 09/ 05/ 04 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * * 103 Subchapter C   Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance; Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program; and Early Action Compact Counties Division 1: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Section 114.50 Vehicle Emission Inspection Requirements. 09/ 05/ 04 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] Subsection 114.50( b)( 2) is NOT part of the approved SIP.

* * * * * * *

Section 114.52 Early Participation Incentive Program. 09/ 05/ 04 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 114.53 Inspection and Maintenance Fees. 09/ 05/ 04 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Division 3: Early Action Compact Counties * * * * * * *

Subchapter I   Non Road Engines * * * * * * *

Section 114.429 Affected Counties and Compliance Schedules. 12/ 06/ 00 11/ 14/ 01, 66 FR 57222 Subchapter J   Operational Controls for Motor Vehicles Division 2: Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations * * * * * * *

Chapter 117 ( Reg 7)   Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds Subchapter A   Definitions Section 117.10 Definitions. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] 104 * * * * * * *

Subchapter B   Combustion at Major Sources Division 1: Utility Electric Generation in Ozone Nonattaiment Areas * * * * * * *

Section 117.103 Exemptions. 09/ 26/ 01 114/ 14/ 01, 66 FR 57244 Section 117.105 Emission Specifications for Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT). 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.106 Emission Specifications for Attainment Demonstrations. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] The SIP does not include section 117.106( d).

Section 117.107 Alternative System Emission Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.108 System Cap. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.113 Continuous Demonstration of Compliance. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.114 Emission Testing and Monitoring for the Houston Galveston Attainment Demonstration. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] 105 Section 117.115 Final Control Plan Procedures for Reasonably Available Control Technologies. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.116 Final Control Plan Procedures for Attainment Demonstration Emission Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.119 Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Division 2   Utility Electric Generation in East and Central Texas Section 117.131 Applicability. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.135 Emission Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] The SIP does not include section 117.106( d).

Section 117.138 System Cap. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.141 Initial Demonstration of Compliance. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] 106 Section 117.143 Continuous Demonstration of Compliance. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.149 Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.203 Exemptions. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.205 Emission Specifications for Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT). 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.206 Emission Specifications for Attainment Demonstrations. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] The SIP does not include section 117.206( e).

Section 117.207 Alternative Plantwide Emission Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.213 Continuous Demonstration of Compliance. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.214 Emission Testing and Monitoring for the Houston Galveston Attainment Demonstration. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] 107 Section 117.215 Final Control Plan Procedures for Reasonably Available Control Technologies. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.216 Final Control Plan Procedures for Attainment Demonstration Emission Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.219 Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.223 Source Cap. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Subchapter C   Acid Manufacturing Division 1: ADIPIC Acid Manufacturing Section 117.301 Applicability. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.309 Control Plan Procedures. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.311 Initial Demonstration of Compliance. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] 108 Section 117.313 Continuous Demonstration of Compliance. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.319 Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.321 Alternative Case Specific Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Division 2: Nitric Acid Manufacturing, Ozone Nonattainment Areas Section 117.401 Applicability. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.409 Control Plan Procedures. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.411 Initial Demonstration of Compliance. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.413 Continuous Demonstration of Compliance. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.419 Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.421 Alternative Case Specific Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] 109 * * * * * * *

Subchapter D   Small Combustion Sources Division 1: Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters * * * * * * *

Section 117.463 Exemptions. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.465 Emission Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Division 2: Boilers, Process Heaters, and Stationary Engines and Gas Turbines at Minor Sources Section 117.471 Applicability. 09/ 26/ 01 11/ 14/ 01, 66 FR 57244 New.

Section 117.473 Exemptions. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Section 117.475 Emission Specifications. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins] The SIP does not include section 117.475( i).

Section 117.478 Operating Requirements. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.479. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

* * * * * * *

Subchapter E   Administrative Provisions 110 Section 117.510 Compliance Schedule for Utility Electric Generation in Ozone Nonattaimnent Areas. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.512 Compliance Schedule for Utility Electric Generation in East and Central Texas. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.520 Compliance Schedule for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Combustion Sources in Ozone Nonattainment Areas. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.534 Compliance Schedule for Boilers, Process Heaters, Stationary Engines, and Gas Turbines at Minor Sources. 12/ 13/ 02 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]

Section 117.570 Use of Emissions Credits for Compliance. 03/ 05/ 03 03/ 26/ 04, 69 FR 15686 * * * * * * *

* * * * *

( e) * * *

EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal/ effective date EPA approval date Comments * * * * * * * 111 Attainment Demonstration for Houston/ Galveston/ Brazoria ( HGB) One hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Adopting Strategy Based on NOx and Point Source Highly Reactive VOC Emission Reductions Houston/ Galves ton, TX 12/ 01/ 04 [ Insert date of FR publication] [ Insert FR page number where document begins]


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69545-69547]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27572]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73615; File No. SR-CME-2014-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Decision Not To Clear Security-Based Swaps

November 17, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on November 17, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (``CME Inc.'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared primarily by CME Inc. CME Inc.
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME Inc. is filing the proposed rule change that is limited to its
business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the
proposed rule change clarifies that CME Inc. has decided not to clear
security-based swaps (``SBSs'').\5\ As a result, CME Inc. is removing
references in Chapter 8-H (Credit Default Swaps Clearing) to SBSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CME Inc.'s decision not to clear SBS is subject to the
limited exception of clearing Restructuring European Single Name CDS
Contracts, as more fully detailed below. All references herein to
CME Inc.'s decision not to clear SBS should be read/understood in
this context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME Inc. included statements
concerning the purpose 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. CME Inc. has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

    CME Inc. is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and currently
offers clearing services for many different futures and swaps products.
To date, CME Inc. has never performed the functions of a clearing
agency with respect to SBSs. This proposed rule change is designed to
make explicit that CME Inc. has decided not to clear SBSs.
    As a result of the above decision, CME Inc. is proposing to amend
Rule 8H01 to explicitly state that CME Inc. will not clear SBSs, with
the exception of Restructuring European Single Name CDS Contracts
created following the occurrence of a Restructuring Credit Event in
respect of an iTraxx Component Transaction.\6\ The clearing of
Restructuring European Single Name CDS Contracts will be a necessary
byproduct after such time that CME Inc. begins clearing iTraxx Europe
index CDS. As currently contemplated, CME Inc. will not permit market
participants to increase, close out (other than due to the occurrence
of a credit event) or otherwise affect the size of a position in a
Restructuring European Single Name CDS Contract.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CME Inc. plans to launch clearing services for iTraxx Europe
index CDS products and will file a separate proposed rule change
with the Commission in connection with its iTraxx proposal.
    \7\ CME Inc. will provide further details surrounding the
clearing of iTraxx Europe index CDS, and Restructuring European
Single Name CDS Contracts specifically, in a separate iTraxx rule
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, to remove references to SBSs, CME Inc. will
accordingly amend or delete Rules 8H04 (CDS Clearing Member Obligations
and Qualifications), 8H820 (Performance Bond for Security-Based Swaps),
8H930.C (Acceptable Performance Bond Deposits for CDS Products), 8H931
(Rule Changes Relating to Security-Based Swaps), 8H932 (Records
Relating to Disciplinary Proceedings and Security-Based Swaps), 8H933
(Notice Regarding Certain Disciplinary Matters Related to Security-
Based Swaps), 8H934 (Reports to CDS Clearing Members), and 8H938
(Summary Suspensions Relating to Security-Based Swap Clearing
Activities).
    CME Inc. believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act, including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
17A(b)(3)(F),\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposed rule change will provide adequate notice to the
public that CME Inc. will not clear SBSs. Additionally, by deciding not
to clear SBSs, CME Inc. believes that it will avoid subjecting non-
security products to potentially ``duplicative or inconsistent
regulation'' and will ``eliminate any potential inefficiencies and
undue delays that could result from the requirement that the Commission
review changes to rules primarily affecting clearing operations with
respect to products that are not securities . . .'' \10\ As a result,
CME Inc. believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69284 (April 9,
2013), 78 FR 21046 (April 9, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME Inc. does not believe that the proposed rule change will have
any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule
change merely makes explicit the fact that CME Inc. has decided not to
clear SBSs. Because CME Inc. never performed, and will not perform, the
functions of a clearing agency with respect to SBS, the proposed rule
change will not affect any actual clearing activities of CME Inc. and
should not have any burden on competition. In fact, CME Inc. believes
that the proposed rule change will have a positive effect on
competition since the proposal will result in the avoidance of
``potential legal uncertainty and market disruption caused by delays
that could result from the requirement that the Commission undertake a
full review'' of CME Inc.'s non-security products.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-64832 (July 7,
2011), 76 FR 41056 (July 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME Inc. has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME Inc. has not received
any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    CME Inc. has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the proposed rule change (i) does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and (iii) does not become
operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the
Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after

the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\17\
CME Inc. has asked the Commission to waive the five-day pre-filing
requirement and the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule
change may become operative immediately upon filing.\18\ The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is appropriate, as
CME Inc. has, to date, never performed the functions of a clearing
agency with respect to SBSs, and the rule text removed or altered as a
result the proposed rule change removes any ambiguity concerning CME
Inc.'s ability or desire to perform the functions of a clearing agency
with respect to SBSs. Therefore, the Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest and designates the proposed rule
change as operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory
organization to submit to the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. 17 CFR
240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). The Commission has waived the five-day pre-
filing period in this case.
    \19\ Solely for purposes of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

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-CME-2014-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2014-49. 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 CME Inc. and on
CME Inc.'s Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    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-CME-2014-49 and
should be submitted on or before December 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27572 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5399-5400]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02038]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0319; FRL--9906-12-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for VOC Emissions from Petroleum
Refinery Wastewater Systems (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for VOC Emissions from
Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart QQQ)
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1136.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0172), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through April 30, 2014. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (78 FR 35023) on June 11, 2013 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days

for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0319, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of petroleum refinery wastewater
systems are required to keep records of design and operating
specifications of all equipment installed to comply with such standards
such as water seals, roof seals, control devices, and other equipment.
This information is necessary to ensure that equipment design and
operation specifications are met, and the source is in compliance with
NSPS subpart QQQ.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum refinery wastewater
systems.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ)
    Estimated number of respondents: 135 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually
    Total estimated burden: 9,237 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $921,126 (per year), includes $17,550
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in
this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative
or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall
burden. The increase in respondent and Agency costs from the most
recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment in labor rates. This ICR
uses updated labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to
calculate burden costs.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-02038 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 60203-60204]
[DOCID:fr12oc06-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54563; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Exchange and Regulatory Bulletin Annual
Subscription Fee

 October 3, 2006.
    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 September 22, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to amend the
Exchange and Regulatory
    Bulletin annual subscription fee. The text of the proposed rule
change is set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized;
proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC.

FEES SCHEDULE

    1.-4. Unchanged.
    Footnotes: (1)-(16) Unchanged.
    5.-14. Unchanged.
    15. MISCELLANEOUS:

Periodic license or royalty fees for DPM-traded products--CBOE costs
passed-through to DPM (12)
assessed)
Trading Floor Printer Maintenance (Per Month) $75
Exchange Bulletin Subscription (Annual) $200 [paper]per hard copy
subscription; no charge for electronic delivery
Late Payment Penalty (Assessed to balances over 30 days old, per month,
compounded) prime rate
Market Maker Failure to Change Appointment or Failure to meet in-person
Trading Requirements (allowed 1 warning letter before fee) $250 per
quarter
ABIL Brokerage Billing $.005 per contract, minimum $50, maximum $200
per month
ORS Analysis, Floor Efficiency Project or Market Penetration Reports
$100 per month
Ad Hoc Information Services Requests Production Costs
DPM requests for post modifications/equipment CBOE costs passed-through
Crowd Space Dispute Resolution Hearing Fee (per hearing, per member) *
$1,000

    * The Crowd Space Dispute Resolution Hearing Fee is $1,000 per
hearing for each party to the dispute and will escalate under
certain circumstances pursuant to CBOE Rule 24.21(e). After the
hearing is held and all rights of appeal are exhausted, the
prevailing party in dispute shall obtain a refund of the Hearing Fee
from the Exchange.

    Remainder of Fees Schedule--Unchanged.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange states that the Exchange and Regulatory Bulletin
(``Bulletin'') is a weekly publication of the Exchange that contains
Exchange notices of a regulatory, administrative, operational and
informational nature. Currently, the Exchange provides each member with
either an e-mail or a hard copy subscription to the Bulletin free of
charge. Non-members, and members who wish to receive additional hard
copy subscriptions, are charged $200 annually per hard copy
subscription. There is no charge for e-mail delivery of the Bulletin.
    In order to encourage even greater use of electronic delivery, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the complimentary hard copy subscription
for members and assess a fee of $200 per year for each hard copy
subscription to the Bulletin.
    The Exchange intends to implement the revised fee effective October
1, 2006.
2. Statutory Basis.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose
any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \8\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or
other charges imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of
the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-78 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-78. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-78 and should be
submitted on or before November 2, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-16853 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 33477]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15242-000]

PacifiCorp; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing
Applications

    On October 13, 2021, the PacifiCorp, filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of Electric Lake Pumped
Storage Project to be located in Emery and Sanpete Counties, Utah. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The
existing 31,500-acre-foot Electric Lake as the upper reservoir, which
is impounded by the 229-foot-high, 8,586-foot-long Electric Lake Dam;
(2) a new 3,900-foot-long, 375-foot-high concrete gravity dam; a new
820-foot-long, 85-foot-high embankment dam; and a new 1,300-foot-long,
150-foot-high embankment dam, each of which would impound a new 5,000-
acre-foot upper reservoir; (3) a new 9,504-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter
penstock; (4) a new underground powerhouse containing up to three 167-
megawatt Francis pump-turbines generators; (5) a new 345-kilovolt,
55,968-foot-long transmission line that would connect the powerhouse to
the PacifiCorp's existing Huntington-Mona 345-kilovolt transmission
line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual power
generation at the Electric Lake Pumped Storage Project would be 1,460
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Tim Hemstreet, Managing Director, Renewable
Energy Development PacifiCorp. 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 1800 Portland,
OR 97232 [email protected].
    FERC Contact: Ousmane Sidibe; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15242-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/elibrary/overview. Enter the docket number (P-15242) in the docket number field
to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 25, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11774 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P