[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66708-66711]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23324]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78909; File No. SR-BX-2016-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX Rules 4702 and 4703

September 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 13, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rules 4702, Order Types, and
4703, Order Attributes, to change the way in which Post Only Orders
interact with resting Non-Display orders and preventing the execution
of midpoint pegged orders during a crossed market.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange offers various Order Types \3\ and Order Attributes
\4\ to help members trade effectively on behalf of investors and
themselves. This proposal would modify the manner in which two of those
order types, Non-Display and Post Only, interact within BX's trading
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 4702. The Exchange also proposes a minor
technical correction to add the word ``price'' after the word
``displayed'' in the second line of the second paragraph of Rule
4702(b)(4)(B).
    \4\ See Exchange Rule 4703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Non-Display Orders, described in Rule 4702(b)(3),
help members minimize market impact when trading in larger-than-average
size. For example, institutions often use Non-Display Orders that use
pegging at the midpoint (Midpoint Peg Order) \5\ of the National Best
Bid and Offer (NBBO) to reduce market impact because a midpoint
execution does not indicate a price movement direction, as opposed to
buying at the offer or selling at the bid (sometimes referred to as
``crossing the spread'') which may publicly indicate the direction of
the stock price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 4702(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also offers Post Only Orders, described in Rule
4702(b)(4), which members, often market makers, use to rest liquidity
on BX's Order Book. Resting displayed liquidity is essential to price
formation and order interaction, two indicators of healthy and orderly
markets. BX introduced Post Only Orders \6\ to enable and encourage
this valuable behavior. A Post Only buy (sell) order entered at a price
below $1.00 will execute against a resting sell (buy) order if the
value of price improvement equals or exceeds the foregone rebate for
liquidity provision and fee for removing liquidity. If a Post Only buy
(sell) order is entered at a price below $1.00 and is equal to the
price of a resting sell (buy) order, the buy (sell) order is repriced
one minimum price increment (MPV), generally $0.0001 \7\ lower (higher)
than the resting sell (buy) order's price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Post Only order Factsheet: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/ProductsServices/Trading/postonly_factsheet.pdf.
    \7\ Securities priced at or above $1 are quoted in $0.01
increments, below $1, they can be quoted in $0.0001 increments. Post
Only behavior is slightly different below $1 because the fees and
economics involved in the execution are distinct from those at or
above $1. Specifically, executions in securities priced at or above
$1 result in rebates for the accessor of liquidity and as such it is
always in the best interest of the incoming Post-Only Order to
execute in securities at or above $1. See Exchange Rule
4702(b)(4)(A). In contrast, executions in securities priced below $1
result in charges to the accessor of liquidity. Compare Rules 7018
(a) and (b). In both cases, the Exchange system is programmed to
analyze the price improvement offered and to execute only where
permitted under its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This repricing function, sometimes referred to as ``price-
sliding,'' often occurs when a liquidity provider seeking to tighten
the bid/offer spread on the Exchange encounters a Non-Display Order on
the opposite side of market from the Post Only Order. When this occurs,
the displayed spread on the Exchange may become wider than on competing
exchanges therefore reducing market quality and the likelihood of
execution on the Exchange. In addition, the member entering the Post
Only Order learns through the repricing action both that there is a
Non-Display Order resting on the book and also the price at which the
Non-Display Order is resting. The Exchange believes that this
interaction is inefficient and detrimental to investors, to members,
and to the market.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes two changes to the manner in
which certain Post Only Orders respond to certain Non-Display Orders
resting on the opposite side of the market. In all other instances,
there will be no change. For example, Post-Only Orders will continue to
execute against resting Non-Display Orders provided the price
improvement associated with the execution equals or exceeds the
foregone rebate for liquidity provision and fee for removing liquidity
for the member entering the Post Only Order, as they do today.
    First, a Post-Only Order that is entered with a price below $1.00
and is equal to the price of a resting Non-Display Order will be posted
at its limit price (or its adjusted price if applicable),\8\ rather
than being re-priced as it is today. This allows the Post Only Order to
lock the resting Non-Display Order.\9\ Both the displayed Post Only
order and the resting Non-Display order will remain available for
execution at the locking price. In this way, neither order is
disadvantaged; the Exchange Bid/Offer spread is tightened; and no
signal is sent to the member that entered the Post Only Order. In this
scenario, efficacy is maintained or enhanced for both the Post Only
Order user and the Non-Display Order user compared to today. For
example, under the current rules if a Participant entered a Post-Only
Order to buy at $0.95, the Best Offer \10\ was $0.97, and there was a
Non-Displayed Order on the Exchange Book to sell at $0.95, the Post-
Only Order would be ranked and displayed at $0.9499. Using the above
scenario, the Exchange is proposing to instead rank and display the
Post-Only Order to buy at its limit price of $0.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If a Post-Only Order is received at a price that would lock
or cross a Protected Quotations [sic], its price will be adjusted in
the same manner as a Price to Comply order (if it is not
Attributable) or a Price to Display Order (if it is Attributable).
See Rules 4702(b)(1) and 4702(b)(4)(A).
    \9\ The Exchange believes that this condition is consistent with
the Regulation NMS prohibition on locked and crossed markets because
the Exchange will not be displaying a locked market.
    \10\ The term ``Best Offer'' is defined in Exchange Rule
4701(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange also proposes to modify processing when a Post
Only Order, priced below $1.00, interacts with a Non-Display Order that
is a Midpoint Peg Order. Specifically, when a Post Only buy (sell)
order is priced higher (lower) than a resting Midpoint Peg Order but
where the difference is less than the foregone rebate for liquidity
provision and fee for removing liquidity, the Post Only Order will
nonetheless be posted at its limit price. This proposal benefits
investors and members because it results in a tighter Bid/Offer spread.
Moreover, because the Post Only order is not re-priced relative to the
resting Midpoint Peg order, as it is today, there is no information
leakage. Additionally, the member entering the Midpoint Peg Order
benefits because the new midpoint based on the new NBBO would now be a
better price for the seller. Midpoint Peg orders are either cancelled
or re-adjusted based on NBBO changes depending on the protocol used by
the member to enter the Midpoint Peg Order.\11\ For example, under the
current rules if the NBBO is $0.92 x $0.97 and a Participant enters a
Midpoint Peg Order (which, as stated above, is Non-Displayed) to buy
200 shares with a limit price of $0.96, the

Midpoint Peg Order would post to the book at $0.945. If thereafter a
Post-Only Order to sell 200 shares at $0.9449 is entered, the Post-Only
Order would post and display at $0.9451 and Midpoint Peg Order would be
cancelled or readjusted depending on the protocol used to enter the
order. Under the proposed change and using the example above, the
incoming Post-Only Order to sell 200 shares at $0.9449 would post and
display at $0.9449 and the Midpoint Peg Order would be cancelled or re-
adjusted depending on the protocol used to enter the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Rule 4703(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to discontinue executing
midpoint pegged orders when the NBBO is crossed. Today, the Exchange
executes midpoint pegged orders when the NBBO is locked by executing at
the locking price and when the NBBO is crossed by executing at the
midpoint of the crossed price. Based upon feedback from members and the
practice of other exchanges,\12\ the Exchange has determined that its
current practice of executing midpoint pegged orders during such
crossed markets produces sub-optimal execution prices for members and
investors. The midpoint of a crossed market is not a clear and accurate
indication of a valid price, nor is it indicative of a fair and orderly
market. The better result is to simply not execute midpoint orders
during crossed markets. To accomplish this, the Exchange will program
the trading system to respond to the creation of a crossed NBBO by
cancelling existing midpoint pegged orders and rejecting the entry of
new midpoint pegged orders. After such order cancellation or rejection,
members can resubmit their orders at their discretion without
limitation. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to modify the rule
language describing the processing of Orders with the midpoint pegging
attribute described in Rule 4703(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., BATS Rule 11.9(c)(9) (no midpoint execution
during crossed market); NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(d)(4) (no midpoint
execution when the market is locked or crossed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth below, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will
benefit investors and members by addressing certain market
inefficiencies that exist on the Exchange, and by improving BX's
competitive position against other exchanges that already offer similar
processing of resting and non-displayed orders.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest in several ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the proposed changes will benefit investors and members by
tightening bid/offer spreads, thereby enhancing execution quality on
the Exchange. Second, members entering Post Only Order users will be
able to execute liquidity providing strategies more efficiently. Third,
the proposed changes will reduce the signaling created today by the
interaction of Post Only and Non-Display Order, and thereby minimize
the market impact of larger orders. Fourth, the cancellation or
rejection of midpoint pegged orders when the NBBO is crossed will avoid
mispriced executions and result in higher overall execution quality for
members.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes have no detrimental
impact on any member or class of members, or on users of the Post Only
or Non-Display Order types or on users of other order types offered by
the Exchange. First, the use of Exchange Order types and attributes is
voluntary, in that no member is required to use any specific Order type
or attribute or even to use any Exchange Order type or attribute or any
Exchange functionality at all. If an Exchange member believes for any
reason that the proposed rule change will be detrimental, that
perceived detriment can be avoided by choosing not to enter or interact
with the Order types modified by this proposed rule change. Second, the
Exchange believes that the changes proposed herein will not result in
any diminution of market quality (execution price, effective spread,
fill rate, etc.) for any member entering or interacting with one of the
Order types modified by this proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule changes are pro-competitive for several
reasons. First, the proposed functionality is designed to compete with
exchanges, including BATS and NYSE Arca, which already offer order
types that behave similarly to how the Exchanges proposes Post Only and
Non-Display Orders behave in the future. Second, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change will make the Exchange a more competitive
execution venue by creating tighter bid/offer spreads and by enhancing
execution quality (i.e., achieving increased price improvement,
reducing effective spreads, and increasing execution fill rates).
Third, the Exchange proposes to offer the same functionality to all
members, thereby eliminating potential competitive burden or
differential treatment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2016-046 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-046. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your

comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-046 and
should be submitted on or before October 19, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23324 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18313-18314]
[DOCID:fr11ap06-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

April 3, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1760-004.
    Applicants: Haleywest L.L.C.
    Description: Haleywest LLC submits an amendment to its market-based
rate schedule.
    Filed Date: 3/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060331-0192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-205-013; ER98-2640-011; ER98-4590-009; ER99-
1610-016.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.; Northern States Power
Company; Northern States Power Company (Wisconsin); Public Service
Company of Colorado; Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc on behalf of Xcel Energy
Operating Companies submits a change in status report relating to NSP's
market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: 3/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060331-0190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-449-013.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator submits its
revised final Status Report to the Commission on the progress it is
making with stakeholders on the issue of deliverability of electric
generating capacity etc.
    Filed Date: 3/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060331-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-406-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a compliance filing
pursuant to the Commission's 2/24/06 order, amending its reliability
assurance agreements.
    Filed Date: 3/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060330-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-427-002.
    Applicants: Mystic Development, LLC.
    Description: Mystic Development, LLC submits amendment to its Fuel
Price Index et al., in reference to the Commission's 2/24/06 order.
    Filed Date: 3/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060330-0062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-642-001.
    Applicants: Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC.
    Description: Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek, LLC submits an
amendment to its notice of succession pursuant to the Commission's 3/2/
06 and 3/6/06 requests.
    Filed Date: 3/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060331-0185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-653-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Services Inc, agent for its Entergy Nuclear
Power Marketing LLC submits a supplement to its 2/21/06 filing.
    Filed Date: 3/20/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060331-0183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 10, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-684-001.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities, Inc.; Allegheny Energy Supply Company,
L.L.C.
    Description: UGI Utilities Inc. submits an amendment to its 2/28/06
Interconnection Agreement with Allegheny Energy Supply Co LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060331-0182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-685-001.
    Applicants: UGI Development Company; UGI Utilities, Inc.
    Description: UGI Utilities submits its compliance filing to reflect
the effective date of 3/1/06 in the footers of the IOA with UGI
Development Company under the requirements of Order 614.
    Filed Date: 3/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060331-0181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-721-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Cooperation, as agent
for Kentucky Power Co et al. submits an amendment to the 3/10/06
filing, executed interconnection agreement between AEP and Louisville
Gas and Electric Co et al., filed on 3/10/06.
    Filed Date: 3/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060330-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-788-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits an amendment to
Third Revised Sheet 25 et al., to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised
Volume 6 pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act etc.
    Filed Date: 3/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060328-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-789-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Nevada Power submits an executed Service Agreement for
Network Integration Transmission Service Retail Access Transmission
Service among Nevada Power's Merchant Function, the Colorado River
Commission et al.
    Filed Date: 3/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060328-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-790-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
submits proposed revisions to Schedules 16 and 17 of its Open Access
Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third
Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 3/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060330-0059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-792-000.
    Applicants: Norge Power Marketing Corporation.
    Description: Norge Power Marketing Corp submits an application for
market-based rate authority, acceptance of initial rate schedule,
waivers and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 3/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060330-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-793-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool Inc submits its revisions to its
regional Open Access Transmission Tariff to incorporate Sunflower
Electric Power Corp as a Transmission Owner participating in the SPP
Tariff.
    Filed Date: 3/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060330-0065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-800-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System; FirstEnergy
Service Company.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc,
et al., on behalf of American Transmission Systems submits proposed
revisions to Attachment O transmission rate formula under Midwest ISO's
OAT & EMT, FERC Electric Tariff Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 3/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060331-0180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-3168-006.
    Applicants: Astoria Generating Company Acquisitions.
    Description: Astoria Generating Co LP submits a notice of change in
status for market based rate authority.
    Filed Date: 3/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060330-0064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 17, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-5292 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19413]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0015]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated January 25, 2014, Texas State Railroad (TSRR) has petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR part 223, Safety Glazing Standards--Locomotives, Passenger
Cars and Cabooses. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-
0015.
    TSRR is a 25-mile-long tourist railroad that operates between Rusk
and Palestine, TX, at a track speed of 20 mph. It shares track with
another freight railroad, the Rusk, Palestine, and Pacific Railway.
TSRR is requesting relief from the glazing requirements for three
locomotives: TSRR Nos. 1, 8, and 22. These three locomotives were built
in the 1940s and 1950s and do not currently have compliant glazing.
TSRR No. 8, an Alco MRS3, is used as a backup locomotive for passenger
and excursion service when a TSRR steam locomotive is out of service.
TSRR No. 1 is a General Electric (GE) 45-ton center cab locomotive used
as a shop switcher and to haul maintenance-of-way equipment. TSRR No.
22 is a GE 70-ton locomotive, which is currently out of service, but
TSRR plans to return to service in the near future. Each of these
locomotives would incur less than 2,500 service miles per year.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 23, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-07787 Filed 4-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58294-58297]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20379]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2022-0515; FRL-10220-01-R1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Maine; 111(d)/129 Revised State Plan for
Large Municipal Waste Combustors and State Plan for Small Municipal
Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Clean Air Act (CAA) State Plan for Municipal Waste
Combustor (MWC) units submitted by the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (Maine DEP). This submission includes
revisions to Maine's previously-approved State Plan for existing Large
MWCs in response to amended emission guidelines (EGs) for Large MWCs.
This submission also includes a State Plan for existing Small MWCs.
Maine DEP's State Plans for Large and Small MWCs implement and enforce
provisions at least as protective as the EGs applicable to these
subcategories of solid waste incinerators. This action is being taken
in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2022-0515 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shutsu Wong, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (Mail Code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is a state plan?
II. Why does EPA need to approve state plans?
III. What history does Maine DEP have with MWC state plans?
    A. Large MWCs
    B. Small MWCs
IV. Why did Maine DEP revise the Large MWC state plan?
V. Why did Maine DEP submit a Small MWC state plan?
VI. Review of Maine DEP's State Plan
    A. State Plan Elements Applicable to Large and Small MWCs
    B. Revised Requirements for Large MWCs Constructed on or Before
September 20, 1994 in 06-096 CMR Chapter 121
    C. Requirements for Small MWCs Established in 06-096 CMR Chapter
121
VII. Why is EPA proposing to approve Maine DEP's state plan?
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Incorporation by Reference
X. Statutory and Executive order reviews

I. What is a state plan?

    Section 111(d) of the CAA requires that pollutants controlled under
new source performance standards (NSPS) also be controlled at existing
sources in the same source category. Once an NSPS is issued, EPA then
publishes emission guidelines (EGs) applicable to the control of the
same pollutant for existing (designated) facilities. States with
designated facilities must develop state plans to adopt the EGs into
their body of regulations. States must also include in their state
plans other elements, such as legal authority, inventories, and public
participation documentation to demonstrate their ability to enforce the
state plans.

II. Why does EPA need to approve state plans?

    Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit state plans
to EPA for approval. Each state must show that its state plan will
carry out and enforce the EGs. State plans must be at least as
protective as the EGs and will become federally enforceable upon EPA's
approval. The procedures for adopting and submitting state plans are in
40 CFR part 60, subpart B.

III. What history does Maine DEP have with MWC state plans?

A. Large MWCs

    On April 15, 1998, the Maine DEP submitted a Section 111(d)/129
State Plan for implementing and enforcing EGs for existing Large MWCs
with capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day (TPD) of municipal
solid waste (MSW) pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb and Eb,
respectively. On December 11, 1998, EPA approved this State Plan (63 FR
68394).
    On December 21, 2007, Maine DEP submitted a revised State Plan for
Large MWCs. This State Plan incorporated revisions made by EPA to 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cb and Eb in 2006. This State Plan did not receive
final EPA approval. In 2019, further amendments and updates were made
to align the state's rules with Federal requirements, and Maine DEP
submitted the revised State Plan to EPA on December 24, 2019.

B. Small MWCs

    Maine's December 21, 2007 submittal to EPA containing revisions to
its State Plan for Large MWCs also contained necessary elements for a
State Plan for Small MWCs. This 2007 submittal did not receive final
EPA approval. In 2019, amendments and updates were made to align the
state's rules with Federal requirements, and Maine DEP submitted the
State Plan to EPA on December 24, 2019.

IV. Why did Maine DEP revise the Large MWC state plan?

    Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a 5-year
review of NSPS and EGs for solid waste incinerators and to amend
standards and requirements as appropriate. Accordingly, EPA promulgated
amended standards and requirements for Large MWCs on May 10, 2006 (71
FR 27324). This rulemaking included revised limits for dioxin/furan

(only for units equipped with electrostatic precipitators), mercury,
cadmium, lead, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides (for some types
of units). It also contained revisions to the compliance testing
provisions to require increased data availability from continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). CEMS are required to generate at
least ninety-five percent (95%) data availability on a calendar year
basis and at least ninety percent (90%) data availability on a calendar
quarter basis. The compliance testing provisions have also been revised
to allow the optional use of CEMS to monitor particulate matter and
mercury. Other revisions include:
     Operator stand-in provisions to clarify how long a shift
supervisor is allowed to be off site when a provisionally certified
control room operator is standing in;
     An eight-hour block average for measuring activated carbon
injection rate;
     A provision for waiver of operating parameter limits
during the mercury performance test and for two weeks preceding the
test, as is already allowed for dioxin testing;
     A revision to relative accuracy criteria for sulfur
dioxide and carbon monoxide CEMS;
     Flexibility to the annual compliance testing schedule so
that a facility tests once per calendar year, but no less than nine
months and no more than 15 months since the previous test;
     Allowing use of parametric monitoring limits from an
exceptionally well-operated MWC unit to be applied to all identical
units at the same plant site without retesting for dioxin;
     The option of monitoring the activated carbon injection
pressure or equivalent parameter; and
     Clarifying the exclusion of monitoring data from
compliance calculations.
    In response to the amended EGs, Maine DEP made two revisions to the
06-096 Code of Maine Regulations (CMR) Chapter 121, entitled ``Emission
Limitations and Emission Testing of Resource Recovery Facilities,''
effective on November 14, 2007 and September 14, 2019, respectively.
The provisions for new Large MWCs covered in 06-096 CMR Chapter 121,
Section 6., entitled ``Large Municipal Waste Combustor Units Subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb'' were excluded from the State Plan.

V. Why did Maine DEP submit a Small MWC state plan?

    The EPA originally promulgated the EGs for large and Small MWCs on
December 19, 1995. In 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated the initial MWC unit rules,
subparts Cb and Eb as they apply to MWC units with a capacity to
combust less than or equal to 250 TPD of MSW (i.e., Small MWCs). As a
result, subparts Cb and Eb were amended to apply only to MWC units with
the capacity to combust more than 250 TPD of MSW per unit (i.e., Large
MWCs). In response to the court's decision, on December 6, 2000, EPA
promulgated an NSPS applicable to new Small MWCs (i.e., capacities of
35 to 250 TPD), an EGs applicable to existing (i.e., construction
commenced on or before August 30, 1999) Small MWCs. The NSPS and EGs
are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAAA and BBBB, respectively
(65 FR 76350 and 76378). The Small MWC rule regulates the following air
pollutants: particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen
chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury,
and dioxins and dibenzofurans.
    As required by Section 129(b)(3) of the Act, on January 31, 2003
EPA promulgated a Federal Plan (FP) for small MWCs that commenced
construction on or before August 30, 1999. The FP is a set of maximum
available control technology (MACT) requirements that implement the EG.
It is applicable to those small, existing MWC units not specifically
covered by an approved State Plan under sections 111(d) and 129 of the
CAA. In addition, it fills a Federal enforceability gap until State
Plans are approved and ensures that the MWC units stayed on track to
complete, in an expeditious manner, pollution control equipment
retrofits in order to meet the final compliance dates on or before of
May 6, 2005.
    Maine DEP revised the 06-096 CMR Chapter 121, entitled ``Emission
Limitations and Emission Testing of Resource Recovery Facilities'' in
2007 and 2019 to regulate existing Small MWCs currently covered by the
FP. Maine's State Plan submission seeks Federal approval such that the
FP will no longer apply to existing Small MWCs in Maine, and Maine will
implement and enforce the State Plan in lieu of the FP. This State Plan
incorporates the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and BBBB.

VI. Review of Maine DEP's State Plan

A. State Plan Elements Applicable to Large and Small MWCs

    State Plans must include the following essential elements: (1)
identification of legal authority, (2) identification of mechanism for
implementation, (3) inventory of affected facilities, (4) emissions
inventory, (5) emissions limits, (6) compliance schedules, (7) testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, (8) public hearing records,
and (9) annual state progress reports on facility compliance.
    Maine DEP has demonstrated the state's legal authority to carry out
the 111(d)/129 State Plan under state statutes of 38 Maine Revised
Statutes sections 585 ``Establishment of emission standards,'' 585-B
``Hazardous air pollutant standards,'' and 590 ``Licensing.''
    Maine's enforceable mechanisms for implementing the State Plan are
06-096 CMR Chapter 121, ``Emission Limitations and Emission Testing of
Resource Recovery Facilities'' and Chapter 140, Part 70 ``Air Emission
License Regulations.''
    Maine DEP's State Plan provides an updated inventory of affected
MWC facilities. Penobscot Energy Recovery Company, Limited Partnership,
and ecomaine (formerly Regional Waste Systems, Inc.) are Large MWCs,
and Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation is a Small MWC. Two facilities
have shut down, Maine Energy Recovery Company Limited Partnership and
Northern Aroostook Regional Incinerator Facility (NARIF).\1\ An
inventory of the emissions from the affected sources has been provided
as part of the State Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NARIF was included in Maine DEP's inventory of sources, but
the facility ceased operations in March 1991 pursuant to a consent
decree with EPA, and the facility was never subject to Federal MWC
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions limits, compliance schedules, testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting are established in the State Plan and
apply to sources based on the size of the facility and the date of
construction; the following Sections VII. B. and C. review the
revisions to 06-096 CMR Chapter 121 that are at least as stringent as
the Federal EGs. Note that the State Plan also provides the license
limits for each of the identified sources; some license limits are more
stringent that the emissions limitations established 06-096 CMR Chapter
121.
    Maine DEP's State Plan includes public hearing records and a
commitment to submit annual state progress reports on facility
compliance to EPA.

B. Revised Requirements for Large MWCs Constructed on or Before
September 20, 1994 in 06-096 CMR Chapter 121

1. Emissions Limits
    Emissions limits are established in 06-096 CMR Chapter 121 and
incorporate limits by reference from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb except
for where the state has more stringent standards. The State Plan has
more stringent standards for mercury, sulfur dioxide and dioxans/
furans.
2. Operating Practices
    The State Plan requires affected sources to follow the operating
practices specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb.
3. Operator Training
    The State Plan requires operator training and certification as
established under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb and according to the
schedule specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb.
4. Compliance and Performance Testing Requirements
    Compliance and performance testing requirements are incorporated by
reference from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb except as provided for under
40 CFR part 60, subpart B. In addition, the State Plan establishes
procedures for common stack testing, requirements for alternative
performance testing schedule for dioxins/furans in certain conditions,
requirements for initial performance testing, and requirements for
emissions testing for arsenic, nickel, chromium and beryllium. Testing
for arsenic, nickel, chromium and beryllium is not required by the
Federal EGs.
5. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Schedules
    The State Plan requires affected facilities to report to Maine DEP
facility operating status and facility process data, pollutant emission
data, combustion process data, and summary emission limitations as
established by license conditions.
    The State Plan requires emission test reports and recordkeeping to
meet the requirements set forth in 40 CFR part A, except for the siting
requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb. In addition, the State
Plan also establishes requirements for reporting to Maine DEP.
    The State Plan incorporates by reference the compliance schedule
specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb and establishes licensing
requirements for affected sources.

C. Requirements for Small MWCs Established in 06-096 CMR Chapter 121

1. Emissions Limits
    Emission limits are incorporated by reference from 40 CFR part 60,
subpart BBBB. The State Plan has more stringent standards for
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, dioxins/
furans, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and carbon monoxide.
2. Operating Practices
    The State Plan requires affected sources to follow the operating
practices specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB.
3. Operator Training
    The State Plan requires operator training and certification as
established under 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB.
4. Compliance and Performance Testing
    The State Plan establishes requirements for owners and operators to
prepare and submit a performance testing plan for approval by Maine DEP
prior to facility start up. The State Plan establishes an emission
testing schedule and a process to request an alternative testing
schedule. The State Plan references EPA Methods from 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A to establish requirements for emission testing of oxygen (or
carbon dioxide), hydrogen chloride, particulate matter, metals and
fugitive emissions. The State Plan requires all affected facilities to
install and operate instruments for continuous emissions monitoring for
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and opacity and specifies requirements
for compliance demonstration and instrumentation, including reference
to 40 CFR part 60, Appendices B and F.
5. Reporting and Recordkeeping
    The State Plan requires affected facilities to report to Maine DEP
facility operating status and facility process data, pollutant emission
data, combustion process data, and summary emission limitations as
established by license conditions. The State Plan also establishes
reporting requirements for exceedances, maintenance of records and
submission of reports to Maine DEP.

VII. Why is EPA proposing to approve Maine DEP's State Plans for Large
and Small MWCs?

    EPA has evaluated the revised State Plan for existing Large MWCs
and the initial State Plan for existing Small MWCs submitted by Maine
DEP for consistency with the Act, the May 2006 EGs for Large MWCs, the
December 2000 EGs for Small MWCs and EPA guidelines and policy. EPA has
determined that Maine DEP's State Plan that was submitted on December
24, 2019 meets all requirements and, therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve MassDEP's Plan to implement and enforce the EGs, as they apply
to existing Large and Small MWCs. Upon the effective date of this
notice, the Federal Plan will no longer apply to existing Small MWCs in
Maine and Maine will implement and enforce the State Plan in lieu of
the Federal Plan.
    EPA's proposal to approve Maine DEP's State Plan is based on our
findings that:
    (1) Maine DEP provided adequate public notice of public hearings
for the proposed rule-making, which allows Maine to carry out and
enforce provisions that are at least as protective as the EGs for Large
and Small MWCs, and
    (2) Maine DEP demonstrated its legal authority to: adopt emission
standards and compliance schedules applicable to the designated
facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and
compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information
necessary to determine compliance; require record keeping; conduct
inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission
reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly
available.

VIII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Maine DEP's revised State Plan for
existing Large MWCs and the initial State Plan for existing Small MWCs.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.

IX. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the provisions of 06-096 CMR Chapter 12,
entitled ``Emissions Limitations and Emissions Testing of Resource
Recovery Facilities,'' effective September 14, 2019, excluding Section
6., entitled

``Large Municipal Waste Combustor Units Subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Eb,'' which regulate emissions and emissions testing for large
and small MWCs. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
State Plan submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See Clean Air Act sections 111(d) and
129(b); 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart
A; and 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rulemaking is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: September 15, 2022.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2022-20379 Filed 9-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19349-19350]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8246]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-448-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Appalachian Gateway Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Appalachian Gateway Project proposed by Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(Dominion) in the above-referenced docket. Dominion requests
authorization to construct and operate the Appalachian Gateway Project
including 110 miles of 20- through 30-inch-diameter pipeline (26.3
miles in West Virginia and 74.9 miles in Pennsylvania) along with
associated minor pipeline and support facilities, and additional
compression, which would increase Dominion's authorized capacity for
the transportation of natural gas by about 484 million cubic feet per
day.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Appalachian Gateway Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the
proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The proposed Appalachian Gateway Project includes the following
facilities:

Pipeline Facilities

     the 5.3 miles, 20-inch-diameter TL-570, EXT. 1 pipeline in
Kanawha County, West Virginia;
     the 6 mile, 24-inch-diameter TL-492, EXT. 5 pipeline in
Greene County, Pennsylvania;
     the 42.3 mile 30-inch-diameter TL-590 pipeline in Marshall
and Greene Counties, Pennsylvania;
     the 54.2 mile, 24-inch-diameter TL-591 pipeline in Greene,
Washington, Allegheny, and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania;
     the 0.5 mile, 16 inch-diameter TL-596 pipeline in Wetzel
County, West Virginia;
     the 0.1 mile, 10-inch-diameter TL-597 pipeline in Wetzel
County, West Virginia;
     the 0.3 mile, 16-inch-diameter TL-598 pipeline in Harrison
County, West Virginia;
     the 0.4 mile, 16-inch-diamter TL-599 pipeline in Harrison
County, West Virginia;

Compressor Station Facilities

     the new 4,735 horsepower (hp) Chelyan Compressor Station
in County, West Virginia;
     the new 3,550 hp Lewis Wetzel Compressor Station in Wetzel
County, West Virginia;
     the new 1,775 hp Morrison Compressor Station in Harrison
County, West Virginia;

     the new 6,130 hp Burch Ridge Compressor Station in Mashall
County, West Virginia;
     modify the existing Pepper Compressor Station with the
addition of 1,665 hp of new compression;
     modify the existing reciprocating engine at the Schutte
Compressor Station in Doddridge County, West Virginia by replacing the
cylinder liners;

Ancillary Facilities

     the TL-591 Metering and Regulation (M&R) Station, in
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania;
     the Crayne M&R Station in Green County, Pennsylvania; and
     pig launchers, receivers and mainline valves along the
pipelines.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the
EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers in the project area; and parties
to this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC
receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before May 6, 2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP10-448-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commenter a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP10-448). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8246 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 12241-12242]
[DOCID:fr06mr08-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57399; File No. SR-ISE-2008-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Program To List and Trade
Options on the iShares Emerging Markets Index Fund

February 28, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 21, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by
ISE. ISE filed the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ISE proposes to extend the pilot period applicable to ISE's listing
and trading of options on the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund
(``Fund''). ISE is not proposing any textual changes to its rules.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On August 27, 2007, the Commission published a notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of a proposed rule change by the ISE to list
and trade options on the Fund for a six month pilot period.\5\ The
pilot period expired on February 27, 2008. The Exchange now proposes to
extend the current pilot program for an additional six month period,
until August 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56324 (August 27,
2007), 72 FR 50426 (August 31, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund continues to meet substantially all of the listing and
maintenance standards in ISE Rules 502(h) and 503(h), respectively. For
the requirements that are not met, the Exchange represents that
sufficient mechanisms exist that would provide the Exchange with
adequate surveillance and regulatory information with respect to the
Fund. Continuation of the pilot would permit the Exchange to work with
the Bolsa Mexicana de

Valores (``Bolsa'') to enter into a surveillance sharing agreement.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\7\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\12\ Waiver of the 30-
day operative period will extend the pilot program until August 27,
2008, which would otherwise expire on February 27, 2008, and allow the
ISE to continue in its efforts to obtain a surveillance agreement with
Bolsa. Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request
and designates the proposal as operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
ISE has complied with this requirement.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2008-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-10. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2008-10 and should be submitted on or before March 27, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4314 Filed 3-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 13271]
[DOCID:fr19mr10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-842-000]

Energy Plus Holdings LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

March 11, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Energy Plus Holdings LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is March 31, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6008 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21541-21542]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09338]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-239-000]

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

    Take notice that on April 25, 2017, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans),
625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 filed a
prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to
abandon two wells in Equitrans' Logansport Storage Field located in
Marion County, West Virginia. Specifically, Equitrans seeks to plug and
abandon two natural gas storage injection and withdrawal wells,
Logansport 6188 and Logansport 8271, which were damaged as a result of
undermining activity that took place in 2010 and are at risk for gas
loss. The abandonment will have no effect on the certificated physical
parameters of the field, and there will be no effect on service to any
of Equitrans' customers, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Paul
W. Diehl, Counsel, Midstream at Equitrans, L.P., 625 Liberty Avenue,
Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    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.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the

Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: May 3, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09338 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 174)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51567-51568]
[DOCID:fr10se07-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046; FRL-8464-3]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects an error pertaining to the Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Belmont County, Ohio (Wheeling,
WV-OH). The 2009 MVEB for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from the
proposed rule was incorrect in the final action. This final rule
corrects that error.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on September 10,
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Marquardt, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published four notices of final
rulemaking to redesignate Washington County (Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-
OH), Jefferson County (Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH), Belmont County
(Wheeling, WV-OH), Stark County (Canton, OH) and Allen County (Lima,
OH) areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. For each of
these counties EPA had proposed approval of the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs. In
each of the final rulemaking notices, EPA omitted the 2009 MVEBs from
the final rules. A correction was made to add these 2009 MVEBs. When
this correction was made there was an error in the 2009 MVEB for
NOX for Belmont County, Ohio. This error is corrected in
this action.

Correction

    For Belmont County, Ohio, in the correction notice published in the
Federal Register on July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36599), on page 36599 in the
third column, second full paragraph: ``In addition, and supported by
and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the
2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes. The 2018 MVEBs * * *.'' is to read: ``In addition, and
supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is
approving the 2009 and 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes. For Belmont County, Ohio, the 2009
MVEBs are 2.60 tons per day of VOC and 4.69 tons per day of
NOX and the 2018 MVEBs are 1.52 tons per day of VOC and 1.91
tons per day of NOX. West Virginia develops MVEBs for its
portion of the area.''
    EPA is revising 40 CFR Section 52.1885(ff)(2) to reflect this
corrected 2009 MVEB for NOX for Belmont County, Ohio.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 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 the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that
there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior
proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting
an error in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is,
therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
Because the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action
is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the
Administrative

Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section above, 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. 104-4). 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 UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of September
10, 2007. 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 correction to
40 CFR part 52 for Ohio is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: August 24, 2007.
Richard C. Karl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Part 52, chapter I, 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 KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by revising paragraph (ff)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (2) Belmont County, as submitted on June 20, 2006, and supplemented
on August 24, 2006, and December 4, 2006. The maintenance plan
establishes 2009 MVEBs for Belmont County of 2.60 tpd of VOC and 4.69
tpd of NOX, and 2018 MVEBs of 1.52 tpd of VOCs and 1.91 tpd
of NOX.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-17627 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 51222]
[DOCID:fr06se07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-62-000]

Southern California Edison Company; Petition for Declaratory
Order

August 28, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 16, 2007, Southern California Edison
Company (SCE), filed a response to the Commission's deficiency letter
issued on July 17, 2007, for Incentive Rate Treatment for three major
transmission projects the SCE is proposing to construct.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 6, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17555 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P