[Federal Register: December 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 79541-79543]
[DOCID:fr29de08-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the California High Speed
Train Project from San Francisco to San Jose, CA

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

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the public that FRA and the
California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will jointly prepare a
project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the San Francisco to San Jose section of the
Authority's proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) System in
compliance with relevant state and federal laws, in particular the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    In 2001, the Authority and FRA started a tiered environmental
review process for the HST system and in 2005, completed the first tier
California High Speed Train Program EIR/EIS and approved the statewide
HST system for intercity travel in California between the major
metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area in
the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in
the south. The approved HST system would be about 800-miles long, with
electric propulsion and steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains capable of
maximum operating speeds of 220 miles per hour (mph) on a mostly
dedicated system of fully grade-separated, access-controlled steel
tracks and with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, communication, and
automated train control systems. In 2008, the Authority and FRA
completed a second program EIR/EIS to evaluate alignments and station
locations within the broad corridor between and including the Altamont
Pass and the Pacheco Pass to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley
portions of the HST system. The Authority and FRA selected the Pacheco
Pass--San Francisco and San Jose termini network alternative, as well
as preferred corridor alignments and station location options. The
selected alignment uses the Caltrain rail right-of-way, between San
Francisco and San Jose along the San Francisco Peninsula, and the
Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller Road, between San Jose and the Central
Valley.
    The preparation of the San Francisco to San Jose HST Project EIR/
EIS will

involve development of preliminary engineering designs and assessment
of environmental effects associated with the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the HST system, including track, ancillary
facilities and stations, along the Caltrain corridor from San Francisco
to San Jose.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the San Francisco to San Jose
HST Project EIR/EIS should be provided to the Authority by March 6,
2009. Public scoping meetings are scheduled from January 22, 2009 to
January 29, 2009, as noted below in San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa
Clara Counties.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope should be sent to Mr. Dan
Leavitt, Deputy Directory, ATTN: San Francisco to San Jose, California
High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA
95814, or via e-mail with subject line ``San Francisco to San Jose
HST'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may also be provided orally or
in writing at the scoping meetings scheduled at the following
locations:
     Sam Trans Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos,
California, January 22, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
     San Francisco State University, 835 Market Street, 6th
Floor (Rooms 673-674), San Francisco, California, January 27, 2009 from
3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
     Santa Clara Convention Center, 5001 Great American
Parkway, Great American Meeting Rooms 1 & 2, Santa Clara, California,
January 29, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Mr. Dan Leavitt, Telephone:
(916) 324-1541 at the above noted address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority was established in 1996 and is
authorized and directed by statute to undertake the planning and
development of a proposed statewide HST network that is fully
coordinated with other public transportation services. The Authority
adopted a Final Business Plan in June 2000, which reviewed the economic
feasibility of a 800-mile-long HST capable of speeds in excess of 200
miles per hour on a dedicated, fully grade-separated state-of-the-art
track. The Authority released an updated Business Plan in November
2008.
    The FRA has responsibility for oversight of the safety of railroad
operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed ground
transportation system. For the proposed HST, it is anticipated that FRA
would need to take certain regulatory actions prior to operation.
    In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed a Final Program EIR/EIS
for the Proposed California High Speed Train System (Statewide Program
EIR/EIS), as the first phase of a tiered environmental review process.
The Authority certified the Final Program EIR under CEQA and approved
the proposed HST System, and FRA issued a Record of Decision under NEPA
on the Final Program EIS. This statewide program EIR/EIS established
the purpose and need for the HST system, analyzed an HST system, and
compared it with a No Project/No Action Alternative and a Modal
Alternative. In approving the statewide program EIR/EIS, the Authority
and FRA selected the HST Alternative, selected certain corridors/
general alignments and general station locations for further study,
incorporated mitigation strategies and design practices, and specified
further measures to guide the development of the HST system at the
site-specific project level of environmental review to avoid and
minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. In the subsequent Bay
Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA
selected the Caltrain right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose
as the preferred alternative to connect with the San Jose to Central
Valley section.
    The San Francisco to San Jose HST Project EIR/EIS will tier from
the Final Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Final Bay Area to Central
Valley HST Program EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and State CEQA Guidelines
(14 C.C.R. Sec.  15168[b]). Tiering will ensure that the San Francisco
to San Jose HST Project EIR/EIS builds upon all previous work prepared
for and incorporated in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Bay Area
to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS.
    This Project EIR/EIS will describe site-specific environmental
impacts, will identify specific mitigation measures to address those
impacts and will incorporate design practices to avoid and minimize
potential adverse environmental impacts. The FRA and the Authority will
assess the site characteristics, size, nature, and timing of proposed
site-specific projects to determine whether the impacts are potentially
significant and whether impacts can be avoided or mitigated. This
project EIR/EIS will identify and evaluate reasonable and feasible
site-specific alignment alternatives, and evaluate the impacts from
construction, operation, and maintenance of the HST system. Information
and documents regarding this HST environmental review process will be
made available through the Authority's Internet site: http://
www.cahighspeedrail.gov/.
    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed HST system is to
provide a new mode of high-speed intercity travel that would link major
metropolitan areas of the state; interface with international airports,
mass transit, and highways; and provide added capacity to meet
increases in intercity travel demand in California in a manner
sensitive to and protective of California's unique natural resources.
The need for a high-speed train (HST) system is directly related to the
expected growth in population, and increases in intercity travel demand
in California over the next twenty years and beyond. With the growth in
travel demand, there will be an increase in travel delays arising from
the growing congestion on California's highways and at airports. In
addition, there will be negative effects on the economy, quality of
life, and air quality in and around California's metropolitan areas
from a transportation system that will become less reliable as travel
demand increases. The intercity highway system, commercial airports,
and conventional passenger rail serving the intercity travel market are
currently operating at or near capacity, and will require large public
investments for maintenance and expansion to meet existing demand and
future growth.
    Alternatives: The San Francisco to San Jose HST Project EIR/EIS
will consider a No Action or No Project Alternative and an HST
Alternative for the San Francisco to San Jose corridor.
    No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative (No Project or No
Build) represents the conditions in the corridor as it existed in 2007,
and as it would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to
the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable
projects through 2035, taking into account the following sources of
information: State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Regional
Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport plans,
intercity passenger rail plans, city and county plans.
    HST Alternative: The Authority proposes to construct, operate and
maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system,
about 800 miles long, capable of operating

speeds of 220 mph on mostly dedicated, fully graded-separated tracks,
with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train control
systems. The San Francisco to San Jose HST corridor selected by the
Authority and FRA follows the Caltrain right-of-way from San Francisco
to San Jose. The HST would operate in this area at speeds below 150 mph
and would share tracks with Caltrain express commuter trains. Further
engineering studies to be undertaken as part of this EIR/EIS process
will examine and refine alignments in the Caltrain right-of-way. The
entire alignment would be grade separated. The options to be considered
for the design of grade separated roadway crossings would include (1)
Depressing the street to pass under the rail line; (2) elevating the
street to pass over the rail line; and (3) leaving the street as-is and
constructing rail line improvements to pass over or under the local
street. In addition, alternative sites for right-of-way maintenance,
train storage facilities and a train service and inspection facility
will be evaluated in the San Francisco to San Jose HST project area.
    The preferred station in the City of San Francisco is the Transbay
Transit Center; in the City of Millbrae the existing Millbrae BART/
Caltrain Station, and in the City of San Jose the Intermodal Diridon
Station. These locations were selected by the Authority and FRA through
the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS considering
the project purpose and need, and the program objectives. Potential
station locations in the City of Redwood City at the existing Caltrain
Station near downtown or in the City of Palo Alto at the existing
Caltrain Station near downtown will also be evaluated in this project
EIR/EIS. Alternative station sites at or near the selected station
locations may be identified and evaluated in this Project EIR/EIS.
    Probable Effects: The purpose of the EIR/EIS process is to explore
in a public setting the effects of the proposed project on the
physical, human, and natural environment. The FRA and the Authority
will continue the tiered evaluation of all significant environmental,
social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the
HST system. Impact areas to be addressed include transportation
impacts; safety and security; land use and zoning; land acquisition,
displacements, and relocations; cumulative and secondary impacts;
cultural resource impacts, including impacts on historical and
archaeological resources and parklands/recreation areas; neighborhood
compatibility and environmental justice; natural resource impacts
including air quality, wetlands, water resources, noise, vibration,
energy, wildlife and ecosystems, including engendered species. Measures
to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts will be identified and
evaluated.
    The San Francisco to San Jose HST Project EIR/EIS will be prepared
in accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts (64 FR 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and will address not only NEPA and
CEQA but will also address as necessary other applicable statutes,
regulations, and executive orders, including the Clean Air Act, Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order
12898 on Environmental Justice.
    This EIR/EIS process will also continue the NEPA/Clean Water Act
Section 404 integration process established through the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS process. The EIR/EIS will evaluate project alignment
alternatives, station and maintenance facility locations to support a
determination of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (``LEDPA'') by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Scoping and Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS
process during scoping and review of the resulting environmental
documents. Comments are invited from all interested agencies and the
public to ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed
action and reasonable alternatives are addressed and all significant
issues are identified. In particular, FRA is interested in determining
whether there are areas of environmental concern where there might be a
potential for significant site-specific impacts. Public agencies with
jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA and the Authority of the
applicable permit and environmental review requirements of each agency,
and the scope and content of the environmental information that is
germane to the agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with
the proposed project. Public agencies are requested to advise FRA if
they anticipate taking a major action in connection with the proposed
project and if they wish to cooperate in the preparation of the Project
EIR/EIS. Public scoping meetings have been scheduled as an important
component of the scoping process for both the State and Federal
environmental review. The scoping meetings described in this Notice
will also be the subject of additional public notification.
    FRA is seeking participation and input of all interested federal,
state, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned
private organizations or individuals on the scope of the EIR/EIS.
Implementation of the San Francisco to San Jose section of the HST
system is a federal undertaking with the potential to affect historic
properties. As such, it is subject to the requirements of section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f.). In
accordance with regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 36 CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate compliance
with section 106 of this Act with the preparation of the EIR/EIS,
beginning with the identification of consulting parties through the
scoping process, in a manner consistent with the standards set out in
36 CFR 800.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 18, 2008.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-30751 Filed 12-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48482-48485]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17445]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78358; File No. SR-DTC-2016-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Link With Euroclear

July 19, 2016.
    On June 3, 2016, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule
change SR-DTC-2016-004 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to
establish a link (``EB Link'') between DTC and Euroclear Bank SA/NV
(``EB''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 16, 2016.\3\ The Commission did not receive
any comment letters on the proposed rule change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78031 (June 10,
2016), 81 FR 39303 (June 16, 2016) (SR-DTC-2016-004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The following is a description of the proposed rule change, as
provided primarily by DTC:
    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules, By-
Laws and Organization Certificate of The Depository Trust Company (the
``Rules'') \4\ in order to add new Rule 34 (EB Link) to establish EB
Link between DTC and EB for DTC Participants that are also EB
participants (``CP Participants'') to use Securities held at DTC for EB
Collateral Transactions (as defined below). The proposed Rule 34
specifies the Accounts, Free Deliveries, and the terms and conditions
that together comprise collateral positioning (``Collateral
Positioning'' or ``CP'') for CP Participants. The proposed rule change
will: (i) Allow CP Participants to designate a sub-account for
Collateral Positioning (a ``CP Sub-Account'') of Securities selected by
the CP Participant (the ``CP Securities'') to Deliver to EB; and (ii)
establish the Securities Account of EB (the ``EB Account'') on the
books of DTC to receive and hold such CP Securities. DTC understands
that EB will then credit such CP Securities to an account it maintains
on its books for such CP Participant for use in transfers on the books
of EB (``EB Collateral Transactions'') in connection with EB's
collateral management services (``EB CMS''), as described below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its
respective meaning as set forth in the Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
    \5\ On May 9, 2016, EB filed an application with the Commission
on Form CA-1, seeking to amend its existing exemption from clearing
agency registration by expanding its existing exemption to authorize
EB to offer EB CMS to its U.S. participants for U.S. equities (the
``EB CA-1 Amendment''). DTC understands that the EB CA-1 Amendment
is necessary for EB to offer EB CMS, and consequently, the DTCC
Euroclear Global Collateral Ltd. (``DEGCL'') Inventory Management
Service (``DEGCL IMS''), to U.S. participants for U.S. equities.
Commission approval of this proposed rule change to add new Rule 34
(EB Link) will have no effect on the authority of EB pursuant to the
EB CA-1 Amendment. In addition, this proposed rule change provides
that it will not be implemented until the EB CA-1 Amendment is
approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Background

(a) New Regulations Require Better Access to and Management of
Securities Collateral
    New and enhanced regulatory requirements are leading derivative and
financing counterparties to seek increased efficiency in the
availability and deployment of collateral and streamlined margin
processing. More specifically, the phase-in period of the Basel III
liquidity rules,\6\ as well as recent regulatory changes by the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission,\7\ the U.S. prudential
regulators,\8\ European Market Infrastructure Regulation,\9\ and the
Basel

Committee on Banking Supervision (``BCBS'') and the International
Organization of Securities Commissions (``IOSCO''),\10\ have resulted
in increased capital requirements, mandatory central clearing of more
derivatives transactions, and new margining rules for bilateral trades,
driving a significant increased demand for high quality collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III: A global
framework for more resilient banks and the banking system, December
2010 and revised June 2011; Basel Committee on Banking Supervision,
Basel III: The Liquidity Coverage Ratio and liquidity risk
monitoring tools, January 2013; Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision, Basel III: The net stable funding ratio, October 2014,
available at www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm.
    \7\ Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and
Major Swap Participants, 81 FR 635 (January 6, 2016); 17 CFR parts
23 and 140.
    \8\ Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities,
80 FR 74840 (November 30, 2015); 12 CFR parts 45, 237, 349, 624 and
1221. The U.S. prudential regulators include: Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency--Treasury, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Farm
Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    \9\ European Supervisory Authorities' (ESAs) Final Draft
Regulatory Technical Standards on risk-mitigation techniques for
OTC-derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP under Article 11(15)
of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR), available at https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1398349/RTS+on+Risk+Mitigation+Techniques+for+OTC+contracts+%28JC-2016-+18%29.pdf/fb0b3387-3366-4c56-9e25-74b2a4997e1d.
    \10\ BCBS-IOSCO, Margin requirements for non-centrally cleared
derivatives (March 2015), available at http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d317.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These regulatory changes further include requirements for initial
margin for counterparties as well as a reduction or removal of
thresholds for variation margin.\11\ It is expected that the inclusion
of initial margin will significantly increase the amount of collateral
required and will create additional margin calls by affected
counterparties. In addition, it is expected that the removal or
reduction of thresholds for variation margin will mean any changes in
underlying valuations may trigger increased margin calls requiring
market participants to hold additional collateral available for
posting. Also, these regulatory changes include new restrictions on
eligible collateral, requiring the use of highly liquid assets,
prescribed haircuts, segregation requirements, as well as a prohibition
on rehypothecation for initial margin. Given these forthcoming
requirements, counterparties will need to access and deploy collateral
more effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Initial margin means money, securities, or property posted
by a party to a swap as performance bond to cover potential future
exposures arising from changes in the market value of the position.
Variation margin means a payment made by or collateral posted by a
party to a swap to cover the current exposure arising from changes
in the market value of the position since the trade was executed or
the previous time the position was marked to market. See 17 CFR
23.700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Proposed Rule Change Will Support DEGCL IMS
    DEGCL is a United Kingdom (``UK'') joint venture of DTCC and
Euroclear S.A./N.V. (``Euroclear''), authorized by the Financial
Conduct Authority (``FCA'') in the UK as a ``service company'' \12\ in
accordance with applicable law of the UK. DEGCL was formed for the
purpose of offering global information, record keeping, and processing
services for derivatives collateral transactions and other types of
financing transactions. DEGCL seeks to provide services to its users,
including buy-side and sell-side financial institutions, in meeting
their risk management and regulatory requirements for the holding and
exchange of collateral, as required by these new regulatory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ DEGCL was authorized as a ``service company'' by the FCA on
March 29, 2016. A ``service company,'' as defined in the FCA
Handbook, Glossary, is: ``[A] firm whose only permitted activities
are making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments,
and agreeing to carry on that regulated activity, and whose Part 4A
permission: (a) Incorporates a limitation substantially to the
effect that the firm carry on regulated activities only with market
counterparties or intermediate customers; and (b) includes
requirements substantially to the effect that the firm must not: (i)
Guarantee, or otherwise accept responsibility for, the performance,
by a participant in arrangements made by the firm in carrying on
regulated activities, of obligations undertaken by that participant
in connection with those arrangements; or (ii) approve any financial
promotion on behalf of any other person or any specified class of
persons; or (iii) in carrying on its regulated activities, provide
services otherwise than in accordance with documents (of a kind
specified in the requirement) provided by the firm to the FCA.'' FCA
Handbook, Glossary, available at https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, DEGCL IMS will address the increased demand for
cross-border availability of securities collateral, some of which may
be held at DTC. The purpose of DEGCL IMS is to offer to its users a
more global view of their collateral assets and support cross-border
mobility and to integrate information and record keeping for collateral
use of Securities held at DTC and EB.
    DEGCL IMS will be operated by EB and other entities in the
Euroclear group, as the service provider to DEGCL, in accordance with
appropriate agreements among these parties and in compliance with
applicable regulatory requirements. There is no direct relationship
between DTC and DEGCL IMS. DEGCL IMS will be offered to any financial
institution that is both a DTC Participant and a participant of EB that
has elected to use EB CMS (``EB Collateral Participant'').

(ii) EB Link and Collateral Positioning Will Offer Global Collateral
Mobility for Securities Held at DTC by CP Participants

    The proposed rule change will establish the EB Link between DTC and
EB through which a CP Participant could Deliver Securities from its
Account to its CP Sub-Account and, from there, to the EB Account at
DTC. The object is for EB to then credit the Securities to an account
of the CP Participant on the books of EB for use in EB CMS.
    For purposes of the EB Link, EB has become a Participant of
DTC,\13\ in order to establish the EB Account to which CP Securities
will be credited. Accordingly, EB will act in two capacities: (i) On
its own behalf as a Participant of DTC, to maintain the EB Account in
which CP Securities may be held, so that EB may effect book entry
transfers of those Securities on its own books and records; and (ii) on
behalf of each CP Participant as the representative (the ``CP
Representative'') of such CP Participant, to provide instructions to
DTC on the CP Participant's behalf for the Delivery of CP Securities
from the CP Sub-Account, and to receive certain information (x) once
each Business Day, identifying the CP Securities that are credited to
the CP Sub-Account at the time of the report (the ``CP Securities
Report''), and (y) that specified CP Securities have been Delivered
into or out of the CP Sub-Account, and/or that an instruction has been
given to DTC to Deliver specified CP Securities out of the CP Sub-
Account, as applicable (the ``Delivery Information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EB was accepted as a Participant on February 18, 2016. Upon
approval of EB as a Participant, EB, like any other Participant,
signed a Participant's Agreement pursuant to which it agreed, inter
alia, that the DTC Rules shall be a part of the terms and conditions
of every contract or transaction that EB may make or have with DTC,
including the Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity testing
requirements set forth in DTC Rule 2 (Participants and Pledgees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CP Participant will authorize EB as its CP Representative, to
provide instructions on its behalf, and to receive the CP Securities
Report and Delivery Information. Both the CP Securities Report and
Delivery Information will include, with respect to the CP Securities
specified therein, the following information: (i) The CUSIP, ISIN, or
other identification number of the CP Securities; and (ii) the number
of shares or other units or principal amount of the CP Securities.
    The CP Participant will instruct DTC to Deliver the CP Securities
from the CP Participant's Account to its CP Sub-Account. After the CP
Securities have been credited to the CP Sub-Account, EB, as CP
Representative, may instruct DTC to make a Free Delivery of the
appropriate CP Securities from the CP Sub-Account to the EB
Account.\14\ All Deliveries from the CP Participant's Account to its CP
Sub-Account and from the CP Sub-Account to the EB

Account will be Free Deliveries, subject to DTC risk management
controls.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EB will determine the eligibility of CP Securities for
DEGCL IMS on the basis of the eligibility profile provided to DEGCL
by its user counterparties, and subject to EB's securities
eligibility rules.
    \15\ DTC risk management controls, including Collateral Monitor
and Net Debit Cap (as defined in Rule 1, Section 1 of the DTC Rules,
supra note 4), are designed so that DTC may complete system-wide
settlement notwithstanding the failure to settle of its largest
Participant or affiliated family of Participants. The Collateral
Monitor tests whether a Receiver has adequate collateral to secure
the amount of its net debit balance. The Net Debit Cap limits the
Net Debit Balance of a Participant so that it cannot exceed DTC
liquidity resources for settlement. Pursuant to these controls under
applicable DTC Rules and Procedures, any Delivery instruction order
to a CP Sub-Account that will cause the CP Participant to exceed its
Net Debit Cap (which a Free Delivery should not) or to have
insufficient DTC collateral to secure its obligations to DTC (which
is possible), will not be processed by DTC. CP Deliveries will be
processed in the same order and with the same priority as otherwise
provided in the DTC Rules and Procedures (i.e., such Deliveries will
not take precedence over any other type of Delivery in the DTC
system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After CP Securities have been credited to the EB Account, it will
then be EB's responsibility to credit them to an account at EB
maintained for the CP Participant, as an EB Collateral Participant. The
originating CP Participant, as an EB Collateral Participant, may then
choose to hold the CP Securities in an account at EB, pending use in
any EB Collateral Transaction, or transfer the CP Securities on the
books of EB to one or more other EB Collateral Participants in
connection with EB Collateral Transactions.
    EB may instruct DTC to Deliver CP Securities from the EB Account to
the CP Sub-Account from which such CP Securities originated. This may
occur if: (i) The CP Participant as a DEGCL IMS user changes its DEGCL
IMS inventory profile in a way that renders the CP Securities credited
to the EB Account no longer eligible for DEGCL IMS; (ii) the CP
Participant submits a Delivery instruction for such CP Securities; \16\
or (iii) the CP Securities are subject to a corporate action or tax
event.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ If at any time a CP Participant has a pending instruction
for Delivery of Securities that had been Delivered from its CP Sub-
Account to the EB Account, DTC understands that EB will instruct DTC
to Deliver those Securities from the EB Account back to the CP Sub-
Account from which they originated.
    \17\ If EB does not Deliver the CP Securities back to the CP
Sub-Account of the CP Participant prior to the applicable record
date for a corporate action, the corporate action will be processed
by DTC in the ordinary course to EB as the Participant holding the
Securities on the Record Date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EB may also instruct DTC to Deliver CP Securities from the EB
Account to the Securities Account of a Participant that EB has
designated as its global custodian (``EB Global Custodian'').\18\ The
CP Securities held in the EB Account are held there exclusively for EB
Collateral Transactions, so this proposed rule change will require EB
to Deliver CP Securities from the EB Account to the Securities Account
of the EB Global Custodian in connection with any liquidation of those
CP Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EB has not been a direct DTC Participant or had a
Securities Account at DTC prior to this proposed EB Link; EB has
held Eligible Securities only as an indirect participant through a
bank that it characterizes as its ``global custodian'' and that is a
DTC Participant. The EB Link is proposed to be established for, and
expressly limited to, Collateral Positioning in connection with EB
Collateral Transactions. EB may continue to use the EB Global
Custodian for other EB transactions and to hold non-CP Securities
indirectly at DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change will add Rule 34 to the DTC Rules, to
provide for:
    1. The establishment and maintenance of a CP Sub-Account for each
CP Participant;
    2. The establishment and maintenance of the EB Account for the
purpose of Collateral Positioning Deliveries;
    3. Free Deliveries of CP Securities by a CP Participant from an
Account of the CP Participant to its CP Sub-Account, and back to (A)
the originating Account of the CP Participant; (B) another Non-CP
Account of the CP Participant; or (C) the Account of another
Participant;
    4. Free Deliveries of CP Securities as instructed by EB, as CP
Representative of the CP Participant, from the CP Sub-Account of the CP
Participant to the EB Account;
    5. Free Deliveries of CP Securities as instructed by EB from the EB
Account to (A) the CP Sub-Account from which such CP Securities
originated, or (B) the Account of the EB Global Custodian;
    6. Information to be provided by DTC to EB, as CP Representative of
the CP Participant, specifically, the CP Securities Report and the
Delivery Information;
    7. The requirement that Deliveries provided in the proposed rule
change must be Free Deliveries, and shall be subject to the terms and
provisions of the DTC Rules and the Procedures applicable to the
Deliveries of Securities, including DTC risk management controls; and
    8. DTC's disclaimer of liability to: (A) Any CP Participant as a
result of acting on instructions from EB or providing EB the Delivery
Information or the CP Securities Report pursuant to Rule 34; (B) EB as
a result of acting on instructions from a CP Participant pursuant to
Rule 34; (C) EB or any CP Participant as a result of any loss relating
to Rule 34, unless caused directly by DTC's gross negligence, willful
misconduct, or violation of Federal securities laws for which there is
a private rights of action; and (D) to any third party for any reason,
including without limitation, DEGCL.

(iv) Implementation Timeframe

    This proposed rule change will be implemented on the later of: (i)
The date of Commission approval of this filing; and (ii) the date of a
Commission order approving the EB CA-1 Amendment, authorizing EB to
offer EB CMS to U.S. EB Collateral Participants for U.S. equities.
Participants will be advised of the implementation date through the
issuance of a DTC Important Notice.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \19\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. The Commission believes that the proposal is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \20\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(7) thereunder,\21\ as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F)

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \22\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible. The Commission understands that EB is currently an
indirect Participant holding DTC Eligible Securities through one or
more other financial institutions that are direct Participants. With
this proposal, a direct link will be established between DTC and EB
(i.e., the EB Link), through which Participants can more directly
deploy their securities collateral for EB Collateral Transactions. As
such, transactions will be processed with EB more efficiently by
eliminating a step in processing such transactions, thus promoting
prompt and accurate transactions and the safeguarding of securities and
funds in the custody or control of DTC, consistent with the
requirements of the Act, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F), cited
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

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

(ii) Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(d)(7)

    Rule 17Ad-22(d)(7) under the Act \23\ requires a clearing agency,
such as DTC, to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to evaluate the potential
sources of risks that can arise when the clearing agency establishes
links either cross-border or domestically to clear or settle trades,
and ensure that the risks are managed prudently on an ongoing
basis.\24\ In developing the proposed EB Link, DTC stated that it
evaluated the risks that could arise by establishing a link with EB, a
foreign central securities depository. DTC stated that it determined
that all Deliveries between CP Sub-Accounts and the EB Account will be
subject to DTC risk management controls and will be limited to Free
Deliveries. Therefore, there should be minimum risk, in particular, no
funds settlement risk, associated with EB Link.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(7).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \25\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-DTC-2016-004 be, and hereby is,
approved.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17445 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22818-22823]
[DOCID:fr28ap08-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0510; FRL-8556-1]

Withdrawal of Federal Implementation Plans for the Clean Air
Interstate Rule in 12 States

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana (SO2 FIP trading program
only), Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, and Virginia because these
12 states have previously submitted and received EPA approval of full
state implementation plans (SIPs) to meet the CAIR requirements. When
EPA issued the CAIR FIPs on April 28, 2006, it stated that it would
withdraw the FIPs in a state in coordination with the approval of the
CAIR SIP for that state. Also, when EPA approved the CAIR SIPs for
these states, it explained that it would take a separate action to
remove the CAIR FIPs for those states. EPA is now acting to formally
withdraw the FIPs for 12 states. This action is necessary because EPA's
approval of those states' CAIR SIPs corrected the deficiency that
provided the basis for EPA's promulgation of the FIPs.
    EPA is also removing the CAIR FIP regulatory text for Connecticut
and New York. The FIPs for these states have already been automatically
withdrawn pursuant to a rulemaking published on November 2, 2007. This
ministerial action is necessary to correct the regulatory text.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0510. (The docket for the CAIR FIP
rulemaking is EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0076 and the docket for the CAIR is EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0053.) All documents in the docket are listed in the http:/
/www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Rulemaking actions for the CAIR and CAIR FIPs are also available at
EPA's CAIR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/cair. The Federal Register
citations for the SIP approval actions for the states addressed in this
rule are provided in section III below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Oldham, Air Quality Planning
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, mail code C539-
04, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 919-541-
0824; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. Judicial Review
II. What Is the Background for This Rule?
III. What Is This Final Action?
    A. Withdrawal of CAIR FIPs in 12 States
    B. Removal of CAIR FIP Regulatory Text for New York and
Connecticut
    C. Updating the CAIR FIP Regulatory Text
IV. What Is the Rulemaking Procedure?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action does not establish any control requirements. It
withdraws the CAIR FIPs in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana (SO2 FIP trading program only),
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, and Virginia because these states
previously have submitted and received full EPA approval of SIPs to
meet the CAIR requirements. EPA promulgated the CAIR FIPs on April 28,
2006 (71 FR 25328). Categories and entities potentially regulated by
the CAIR FIPs include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category             NAICS code \1\     regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          221112  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                  electric utility steam
                                                  generating units.
Federal government.............      \2\ 221122  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                  electric utility steam
                                                  generating units owned
                                                  by the Federal
                                                  government.
State/local/Tribal government..      \2\ 221122  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                  electric utility steam
                                                  generating units owned
                                                  by municipalities.
                                         921150  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                  electric utility steam
                                                  generating units in
                                                  Indian Country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Federal, state, or local government-owned and operated
  establishments are classified according to the activity in which they
  are engaged.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the CAIR
FIPs in states that continue to be affected by the FIPs. To determine
whether your facility is affected by the CAIR FIPs, in states where the
FIP still applies, you should examine the definitions and applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 97.102, 97.104, 97.105, 97.202, 97.204, 97.205,
97.302, 97.304, and 97.305.

B. Judicial Review

    Under CAA section 307(b), judicial review of this final action is
available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on or before June 27,
2008. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.

II. What Is the Background for This Rule?

    In a final rule published on April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21147),
effective May 25, 2005, EPA made national findings that states had
failed to submit SIPs required under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) to address interstate transport with respect to the
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
These SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The findings started a 2-year
clock for EPA to promulgate FIPs to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). Under section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP any time
after such findings are made and must do so unless a SIP revision
correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is
promulgated.
    On May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), EPA issued the CAIR, which
established the levels of NOX and SO2 emission reduction
requirements necessary for CAIR-affected states to address their
significant 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 interstate transport. (See also CAIR
revisions on April 28, 2006; 71 FR 25288 and December 13, 2006; 71 FR
74792.) NOX emissions are precursors to

8-hour ozone and PM2.5; SO2 emissions are precursors to PM2.5. The CAIR
affects 28 states and the District of Columbia (collectively, CAIR
states) in the eastern half of the country. All CAIR states were
required to submit their CAIR SIPs by September 11, 2006. For states
subject to the CAIR requirements, an approved CAIR SIP corrects the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005
findings action.
    In a final rule published on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA
promulgated FIPs as a backstop to implement the CAIR requirements in
all CAIR states. As the control requirement for the FIPs, EPA adopted
the model trading rules for electric generating units (EGUs) that EPA
provided in CAIR as a control option for states, with minor changes to
account for Federal rather than state implementation. The FIPs were
promulgated to regulate EGUs in the affected states and achieve the
emissions reduction requirements established by the CAIR until states
promulgated and received EPA approval of SIPs to achieve the
reductions. In the FIP preamble, EPA stated it would withdraw the FIP
in a state in coordination with the approval of the CAIR SIP for that
state. Because EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005,
findings action, once EPA fully approves a full SIP \1\ to correct that
deficiency for a state, EPA no longer has the authority for the FIP in
that state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CAIR FIPs also provide that states may submit
``abbreviated'' SIP revisions to replace or supplement specific
elements of the FIPs, leaving the remainder of the overall FIPs in
place, rather than submitting ``full'' CAIR SIP revisions that
replace the FIPs. The abbreviated SIP revisions, when approved, will
automatically replace or supplement the corresponding CAIR FIP
provisions. (See 71 FR at 25345-25346 for further details.) This
rule only addresses States that submitted full CAIR SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 2, 2007 (72 FR 62338), EPA published a final rule to
amend the CAIR FIPs to make FIP withdrawal automatic upon the effective
date of EPA's approval of a full SIP revision meeting the CAIR
requirements. This rule became effective on January 16, 2008. For full
CAIR SIPs whose EPA approvals are effective on or after that date, EPA
will not need to take further action to withdraw the FIP. However, the
automatic CAIR FIP withdrawal provisions do not apply retroactively.
Therefore, EPA is issuing this separate final rule to withdraw the CAIR
FIPs in states whose full CAIR SIP approvals have effective dates prior
to January 16, 2008.

III. What Is This Final Action?

A. Withdrawal of CAIR FIPs in 12 States

    In this final action, EPA is withdrawing CAIR FIPs in the 12 states
listed below because the states previously have submitted and received
EPA approval of full SIPs to meet the CAIR requirements and the SIP
approvals are effective. These SIP approvals became effective prior to
January 16, 2008. Therefore, as discussed above, the automatic FIP
withdrawal provisions, which became effective on January 16, 2008, do
not apply. EPA promulgated the FIPs based on findings that the affected
states had failed to submit SIPs to address the requirements of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA's approval of the full CAIR SIPs corrects the
110(a)(2)(D)(i) deficiency for the listed states and thus also removes
the basis for the FIPs in that state.
    All of these 12 states have chosen to participate in the EPA-
administered trading programs that EPA provided in the CAIR as highly
cost-effective options for meeting the CAIR requirements. The SIP
approval actions provide details on the states' trading programs.
Except for Louisiana, the full SIPs address all of the CAIR
requirements in the state. Louisiana adopted a full SIP to address the
SO2 requirements for PM2.5, but adopted an abbreviated SIP to address
the annual and ozone season NOX requirements for PM2.5 and
ozone. Therefore, EPA is only withdrawing the FIP SO2 requirements in
Louisiana. The EPA has not yet taken any action under the relevant FIP
trading programs for these states, such as recording the initial set of
NOX allocations, that would preclude EPA from fully
withdrawing the FIPs in these states.
    The final CAIR SIP approvals were published in the Federal Register
on the dates given below.
Alabama
    EPA's full approval of Alabama's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55659)
and effective on October 31, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the
CAIR FIP requirements for Alabama under 40 CFR 52.54 for annual and
ozone season NOX emissions and under 40 CFR 52.55 for to
SO2 emissions.
Arkansas
    EPA's full approval of Arkansas's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS was published on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54556) and effective
November 26, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the CAIR FIP
requirements for Arkansas under 40 CFR 52.184 for ozone season
NOX emissions.
Florida
    EPA's full approval of Florida's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published October 12, 2007 (72 FR 58016) and
effective November 13, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the CAIR FIP
requirements for Florida under 40 CFR 52.540 for annual and ozone
season NOX emissions and under 40 CFR 52.541 for
SO2 emissions.
Georgia
    EPA's full approval of Georgia's CAIR SIP for the PM2.5
NAAQS was published on October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57202) and effective
November 8, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the CAIR FIP
requirements for Georgia under 40 CFR 52.584 for annual NOX
emissions and under 40 CFR 52.585 for SO2 emissions.
Illinois
    EPA's full approval of Illinois' CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published on October 16, 2007 (72 FR 58528)
and effective December 17, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the CAIR
FIP requirements for Illinois under 40 CFR 52.745 for annual and ozone
season NOX emissions and under 40 CFR 52.746 for
SO2 emissions.
Iowa
    EPA's full approval of Iowa's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43539) and
effective September 5, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the CAIR FIP
requirements for Iowa under 40 CFR 52.840 for annual and ozone season
NOX emissions and under 40 CFR 52.841 for SO2
emissions.
Kentucky
    EPA's full approval of Kentucky's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published October 4, 2007 (72 FR 56623) and
effective December 3, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the CAIR FIP
requirements for Kentucky under 40 CFR 52.940 for annual and ozone
season NOX emissions and under 40 CFR 52.941 for
SO2 emissions.
Louisiana
    EPA's approval of Louisiana's full CAIR SO2 SIP for the
PM2.5 NAAQS was published on July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39741) and
effective on September 18, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the FIP
requirements for Alabama under 40 CFR part 52.985 for SO2
emissions. (Louisiana adopted an abbreviated SIP for annual and ozone
season NOX

emissions for the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, respectively
(72 FR 55064; September 28, 2007).)
Massachusetts
    EPA's approval of Massachusetts's CAIR SIP for the ozone NAAQS was
published on December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67854) and effective on December
3, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the CAIR FIP requirements for
Massachusetts under 40 CFR 52.1140 for ozone season NOX
emissions.
Mississippi
    EPA's approval of Mississippi's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56268) and
effective on November 2, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the CAIR
FIP requirements for Mississippi under 40 CFR 52.1284 for annual and
ozone season NOX emissions and under 40 CFR 52.1285 for
SO2 emissions.
Missouri
    EPA's approval of Missouri's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published on December 14, 2007 (72 FR 71073)
and effective on December 14, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the
CAIR FIP requirements for Missouri under 40 CFR 52.1341 for annual and
ozone season NOX emissions and under 40 CFR 52.1342 for
SO2 emissions.
Virginia
    EPA's approval of Virginia's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published on December 28, 2007 (72 FR 73602)
and effective on December 28, 2007. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the
CAIR FIP requirements for Virginia under 40 CFR 52.2440 for annual and
ozone season NOX emissions and under 40 CFR 52.2441 for
SO2 emissions.

B. Removal of CAIR FIP Regulatory Text for New York and Connecticut

    EPA is also taking ministerial action to remove the CAIR FIP
regulatory text for Connecticut and New York. The CAIR SIP approvals
for these states became effective after the January 16, 2008 effective
date of EPA's automatic FIP withdrawal rule (72 FR 62338; November 2,
2007). Therefore, the FIPs for these states were automatically
withdrawn pursuant to that rule. This current action removes the
associated FIP regulatory text to reflect that the FIPs have been
withdrawn.
    EPA's approval of Connecticut's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
was published and effective on January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4105).
Therefore, the CAIR FIP for Connecticut was withdrawn on January 24,
2008 and EPA is removing the CAIR FIP regulatory text for Connecticut
under 40 CFR 52.386 for ozone season NOX emissions.
    EPA's approval of New York's CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS was published and effective on January 24, 2008
(73 FR 4109). Therefore, the CAIR FIPs for New York were withdrawn on
January 24, 2008 and EPA is removing the CAIR FIP regulatory text for
New York under 40 CFR 1684 for annual and ozone season NOX
emissions and under 40 CFR 52.1685 for SO2 emissions. To
meet the CAIR requirements, Connecticut and New York both chose to
participate in the EPA-administered cap and trade programs that EPA
provided in the CAIR.
    In the future, EPA will be removing the CAIR FIP regulatory text
for a state in the context of the CAIR SIP approval action for the
state. Thus, a separate action to remove the CAIR FIP regulatory text
will not be needed.

C. Updating the CAIR FIP Regulatory Text

    This action updates the regulatory text in 40 CFR part 52 to
reflect the withdrawal of the FIPs for the states discussed above. In
some instances, EPA is not only removing the regulatory text, but also
reserving the section where the regulatory text had been. This has no
substantive impact and is being done solely to preserve the numbering
of sections in the Code of Federal Regulations according a protocol
established by the Office of the Federal Register.

IV. What Is the Rulemaking Procedure?

    The EPA is taking this action as a final rule without providing an
additional opportunity for public comment or a public hearing because
EPA finds that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) good cause
exemption applies here. Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
provides that when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public
interest, the Agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an
opportunity to comment.
    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary or in the public
interest to provide a public hearing or an additional opportunity for
public comment on this action because the withdrawal of the FIPs in
these states is a necessary ministerial act. As explained above, once
EPA fully approves a CAIR SIP for a state and that approval is
effective, EPA no longer has the authority for the CAIR FIPs in that
state. Therefore, EPA is taking this action to remove the regulatory
text that applies the FIP requirements to sources in states listed
above. Since the SIPs are already effective and sources in these states
are subject to the requirements of the SIP for their state, EPA's
withdrawal of the FIPs has no practical consequences. Further, since
the SIP approvals remove EPA's authority for the FIPs, EPA believes it
has no option but to withdraw the FIPs. If EPA were to decide to
reconsider or reverse a SIP approval action, it would take any
appropriate action with regard to the FIP at that time. For these
reasons, it would serve no useful purpose to provide an additional
opportunity for public comment or a public hearing on this issue.
    EPA also finds that it would be contrary to the public interest to
delay issuing this rule in order to offer additional comment
opportunities. Promulgation of this rule as soon as possible following
the SIP approval serves to clarify that sources initially covered by
the FIPs in these states are now covered by the requirements of the
SIPs in these states.
    For these reasons, EPA hereby finds for good cause, pursuant to
section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that it would be
unnecessary and contrary to public interest for EPA to offer an
additional opportunity for public comment and a public hearing on this
rule. Therefore, pursuant to CAA 307(d)(1) the requirements of 307(d),
including the requirement for a public hearing, do not apply to this
action.
    Further, EPA previously provided public notice that the withdrawal
of the FIP would be a necessary consequence of the SIP approval. In the
CAIR FIP rulemaking, EPA explained that it would withdraw the FIP in a
state in coordination with the CAIR SIP approval. In developing the
FIP, EPA provided an opportunity for comment and held two public
hearings. Further, in proposing to approve each SIP, EPA noted that the
FIP withdrawal would be one necessary consequence of the SIP approval.
This process provided the public with ample opportunity to comment on
the substantive issues related to the SIP approval. To provide an
additional opportunity for public comment and a public hearing on the
FIP withdrawal action, which cannot alter or affect the terms of the
SIP approval, would serve no useful purpose and is thus unnecessary.
    EPA has also determined that it is appropriate for this rule to
become effective immediately upon publication. Section 553(d) of the
APA allows the

agency to give a rule an effective date that is less than 30 days after
the rules publication date in certain circumstances, two of which apply
here. First, section 553(d)(1) allows the effective date to be less
than 30 days after the publication date if the rule is ``a substantive
rule which * * * relieves a restriction.'' This action withdraws a
federal regulation for 12 states and thus qualifies as a substantive
rule which relieves a restriction within the meaning of 553(d)(1).
Second, section 553(d)(3) also allows the effective date to be less
than 30 days after the publication date ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' As explained
above, promulgation of this rule as soon as possible following the SIP
approval serves to clarify that sources initially covered by the FIPs
in these states are now covered by the requirements of the states' SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (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. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The FIP withdrawal does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Because EPA has made a ``good cause''
finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104B4). In addition, this
action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or
impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in
sections 203 and 204 of the UMRA.
    This FIP withdrawal rule does not have substantial direct effects
on the states, or on the relationship between the national government
and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order
13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
    This action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The FIP withdrawal rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because this action is
not economically significant.
    The FIP withdrawal rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because this action is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    The FIP withdrawal rule does not involve changes to technical
standards related to test methods or monitoring methods; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply.
    The FIP withdrawal rule also does not involve special consideration
of environmental justice-related issues as required by Executive Order
12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 of the CRA provides an
exception to this requirement. For any rule for which an agency for
good cause finds that notice and comment are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the rule may take
effect on the date set by the Agency. The EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
final rule will be effective on April 28, 2008.
    The EPA's compliance with the above statutes and Executive Orders
for the underlying rules are discussed in section X of the CAIR at 70
FR 25305 and in section IX of the CAIR FIPs at 71 FR 25365.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: April 16, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 52 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Alabama

Sec.  52.54  [Removed and reserved]

0
2. Section 52.54 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  52.55  [Removed and reserved]

0
3. Section 52.55 is removed and reserved.

Subpart E--Arkansas

Sec.  52.184  [Removed]

0
4. Section 52.184 is removed.

Subpart H--Connecticut

Sec.  52.386  [Removed]

0
5. Section 52.386 is removed.

Subpart K--Florida

Sec.  52.540  [Removed]

0
6. Section 52.540 is removed.

Sec.  52.541  [Removed]

0
7. Section 52.541 is removed.

Subpart L--Georgia

Sec.  52.584  [Removed]

0
8. Section 52.584 is removed.

Sec.  52.585  [Removed]

0
9. Section 52.585 is removed.

Subpart O--Illinois

Sec.  52.745  [Removed]

0
10. Section 52.745 is removed.

Sec.  52.746  [Removed]

0
11. Section 52.746 is removed.

Subpart Q--Iowa

Sec.  52.840  [Removed]

0
12. Section 52.840 is removed.

Sec.  52.841  [Removed]

0
13. Section 52.841 is removed.

Subpart S--Kentucky

Sec.  52.940  [Removed]

0
14. Section 52.940 is removed.

Sec.  52.941  [Removed]

0
15. Section 52.941 is removed.

Subpart T--Louisiana

Sec.  52.985  [Removed and reserved]

0
16. Section 52.985 is removed and reserved.

Subpart W--Massachusetts

Sec.  52.1140  [Removed and reserved]

0
17. Section 52.1140 is removed and reserved.

Subpart Z--Mississippi

Sec.  52.1284  [Removed]

0
18. Section 52.1284 is removed.

Sec.  52.1285  [Removed]

0
19. Section 52.1285 is removed.

Subpart AA--Missouri

Sec.  52.1341  [Removed]

0
20. Section 52.1341 is removed.

Sec.  52.1342  [Removed]

0
21. Section 52.1342 is removed.

Subpart HH--New York

Sec.  52.1684  [Removed]

0
22. Section 52.1684 is removed.

Sec.  52.1685  [Removed]

0
23. Section 52.1685 is removed.

Subpart VV--Virginia

Sec.  52.2440  [Removed and reserved]

0
24. Section 52.2440 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  52.2441  [Removed and reserved]

0
25. Section 52.2441 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. E8-9219 Filed 4-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44767-44768]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-523-000]

Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on July 18, 2014, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans),
pursuant to the blanket certificate authorization granted to Equitrans
on October 20, 1998, in Docket No. CP96-532-000,\1\ filed an
application in accordance to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as
amended, requesting authority to construct and operate its H-312
Pipeline Project (Project) in Harrison County, West Virginia. The
proposed new facilities will increase the capacity on Equitrans'
mainline system, thereby enabling Equitrans to accommodate additional
volumes expected from a non-affiliated producer into Equitrans'
existing H-509 pipeline, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FERC ] 61,089 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To alleviate the anticipated constraint on the existing H-509
pipeline, Equitrans proposes to construct the Project which includes
approximately 49,055 feet (or 9.29 miles) of a 12-inch diameter natural
gas pipeline, with a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of
1,200 pounds per square inches (psig), and appurtenant facilities. The
Project starts at the existing Morrison Interconnect in Wilsonburg,
West Virginia and runs north to the existing Lumberport Overpressure
Protection Station and H-557 pipeline in Lumberport, West Virginia. The
Project will include 9.29 miles of right-of-way (ROW) primarily
adjacent to an existing ROW. The proposed facilities will enable
Equitrans to provide additional capacity of 100,000 Dth per day of
incremental natural gas volumes to be received onto the existing H-509
pipeline. Equitrans conducted a non-binding open season, from June 10,
2013 through July 10, 2013 and a reverse open season from April 17,
2014 to May 2, 2014. No capacity was turned back to Equitrans. The
total estimated cost of the proposed project is $26,942,253.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Paul
W. Diehl, Senior Counsel--Midstream, at

EQT Corporation, 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222,
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.

    Dated: July 28, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18192 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2607]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC22-35-000.
    Applicants: Bicent (California) Malburg LLC, BIV Generation
Company, L.L.C., Colorado Power Partners, Tanner Street Generation,
LLC, GIP CAPS Grendel, L.P.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Bicent (California) Malburg LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220111-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER22-735-001.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Avista First Amendment to OATT
Revisions for Attachments M, N and Q to be effective 3/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 1/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220111-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-800-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Multiple Sections Tariff
Clean-Up to be effective 3/11/2022.
    Filed Date: 1/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220111-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-801-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Appendix 7 Collation Value
Error to be effective 3/11/2022.
    Filed Date: 1/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220111-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-802-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended DSA Cald BESS LLC SA No.
1151 WDT1641 & WDT1736 to be effective 3/13/2022.
    Filed Date: 1/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220111-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-803-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 205: NYISO-
NMPC-Martin Rd Solar Amended Restated SGIA (SA 2571) to be effective
12/29/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220111-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-804-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-01-11 CSU CO&M Agrmt-
Flying Horse-Briargate Proj-648-0.0.0 to be effective 1/12/2022.
    Filed Date: 1/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220111-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/22.

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

    Dated: January 11, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00808 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10504-10505]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03550]

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

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: RP22-1105-000.
    Applicants: Anadarko US Offshore LLC, Murphy Exploration &
Production Company--USA, Eni Petroleum US LLC, INPEX Americas, Inc.
    Description: Joint Request of Anadarko U.S. Offshore LLC, et al.
for Extension of Limited Waiver et al.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-429-000.
    Applicants: Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: STT Address Change Filing to
be effective 8/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230206-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-438-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Northern Natural Gas submits report of the penalty and
daily delivery variance charge (DDVC) revenues that have been credited
to shippers.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-78-008.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Opinion No. 885 Compliance Filing-
Docket Nos. RP19-78, RP19-1523, and RP19-257 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/14/23.
    Accession Number: 20230214-5047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 14, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03550 Filed 2-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15095]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-3253-001; ER10-3237-001; ER10-3240-001; ER10-
3230-001; ER10-3239-001.
    Applicants: Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc., Wheelabrator Westchester
L.P., Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P., Wheelabrator Frackville Energy
Co., Inc., Wheelabrator North Andover Inc.
    Description: Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. et. al. submits
supplemental information to their updated market power analysis for the
Northeast region.
    Filed Date: 3/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120306-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1217-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3253; Queue No. W4-053
to be effective 2/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120306-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1218-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3250; Queue No. W2-091
to be effective 2/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120307-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1219-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3249; Queue No. W2-088
effective 2/14/2012 [initial submission description misidentified as
No. 3250; Queue No. W2-091.
    Filed Date: 3/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120307-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1220-000.
    Applicants: Community Power & Utility, Community Power & Utilities.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Community Power & Utility.
    Filed Date: 3/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120307-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/12.

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

    Dated: March 07, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6131 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 22, 2000

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 96-1636

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  CORPORACION AEREA CENCOR, S.A. de C.V.
       Date Filed:  October 20, 2000

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  November 23, 1999, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative(s):  Lee A. Bauer,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
      Action date:  November 22, 2000

Effective dates of authority granted:  November 22, 2000, through
November 23, 2001.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

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

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval of their Third and Fourth Freedom charters (see Order
92-2-7 at 5), we determined that a Third/Fourth Freedom prior-approval
requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in the case of
this carrier, since it will be conducting these operations solely with
small aircraft.  (Other charter operations to/from the United States
under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14
CFR Part 212.)  Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers
conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in
the United States in the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within ten (10) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An
elect潲楮敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢
湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲
潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, September 17, 2018 6:24 PM
To:
Eric Stuart<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
list of current EAF for map purposes - for your review and comment

Hello Eric - I decided to update my steel industry maps that had not been done since I started on steel in 2011. I used our latest list we had developed and then RTI looked at facilities reporting to the GHG program as well as other information on web.  See the yellow tab spreadsheet and then the "Notes+ column J, also yellow, to see the facilities we recently determined should be on the list. The specific notes are also yellow highlighted in column J. However, I also could use comments on any facility you think should not be on the list as well as any we may have missed.
Thanks in advance for your help. No big rush for this.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< EAF_Map_Facility_List_9.17.18-SMA-review.xlsx >>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 64053]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (232) Airborne Selective
Calling Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Fifth RTCA Special Committee 232 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Fifth RTCA Special Committee 232 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 10th-11th from 9:00 a.m.- 5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or Hal
Moses, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-0654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 232. The agenda
will include the following:

Tuesday-Wednesday, November 10-11, 2015

1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Overview
3. Review/Approval of Minutes from Plenary #4
4. Status of Other SELCAL Industry Activities/Committees
5. Review of Selective Calling (SELCAL) Action Items
6. Review SC-232 Completion Schedule
7. Review of Draft MOPS
8. Continue and Complete Drafting MOPS
9. Other Business
10. Date and Place of Next Meetings
11. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 16, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, Next Generation, Enterprise Support
Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-26863 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                     EPA Meeting with Airlines for America
                                March 29, 2012

Attendees:
EPA OUST:
Mark Barolo, Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Tim Smith, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton, Cho Yi Kwan, Dave Hamnett

Airlines for America:
Grant Smith, Burns and McDonnell Engineering
Nancy Young, Airlines for America
Tom Richichi, Beveridge and Diamond
Bethany French, Beveridge and Diamond
Tim Pohle, Airlines for America

At this meeting EPA and the Airlines for America discussed the proposed changes to the UST regulations.  The discussion focused on the proposed changes to previously deferred airport hydrant systems and the universe of commercial airports that would fall under the proposed regulations.