United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Air Division Technical Support Document for EPA= s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Arizona State Implementation Plan Submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for the Pinal County Air Quality Control District EPA= s Analysis of Pinal County Air Quality Control District= s Rule 4 2 020, General [ Fugitive Dust] Rule 4 2 030, Definitions [ Fugitive Dust] Rule 4 2 040, Standards [ Fugitive Dust] Rule 4 2 050, Monitoring and Records [ Fugitive Dust]

May 9, 2006 Prepared by Francisco Dóñez AGENCY NAME: Pinal County Air Quality Control District ( PCAQCD)

SUBMITTED RULES $ Rule 4 2 020, General [ Fugitive Dust] ( adopted June 29, 1993, submitted November 27, 1995, complete June 4, 1996).

$ Rule 4 2 030, Definitions [ Fugitive Dust] ( adopted June 29, 1993, submitted November 27, 1995, complete June 4, 1996).

$ Rule 4 2 040, Standards [ Fugitive Dust] ( adopted June 29, 1993, submitted November 27, 1995, complete June 4, 1996).

$ Rule 4 2 050, Monitoring and Records [ Fugitive Dust] ( amended May 14, 1997, submitted October 7, 1998, complete April 24, 1999).

APPLICABLE SIP RULES None of the above rules has been previously submitted or incorporated into the Arizona SIP.

SUMMARY OF RULES PCAQCD Rules 4 2 020, 4 2 030, 4 2 040, and 4 2 050 regulate various operations which could cause fugitive dust emissions. They apply to construction, agricultural, transportation, storage, and other activities taking place in the county.

EVALUATION OF RULES PCAQCD Rules 4 2 020, 4 2 030, 4 2 040, and 4 2 050 were evaluated for consistency with the Clean Air Act ( CAA), 40 CFR 51, and EPA= s PM 10 policy. The following guidance documents were used for reference: PM 10 Guideline Document ( EPA 452/ R 93 008).

Sections 172( c)( 1) and 189( a) of the CAA require moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control measures ( RACM), including reasonably available control technology ( RACT) for stationary sources of PM 10. Section 189( b) requires that serious PM 10 nonattainment areas, in addition to meeting the RACM/ RACT requirements, implement best available control measures ( BACM), including best available control technology ( BACT). In the northern part of PCAQCD is the Apache Junction portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area, which is a serious PM 10 nonattainment area. In the northeastern part of PCAQCD is Hayden Miami, which is a moderate PM 10 nonattainment area. PCAQCD regulates certain sources of PM 10 within the nonattainment areas.

EPA= s guidance for both moderate and serious PM 10 nonattainment areas provides that RACM/ RACT and BACM/ BACT are required to be implemented for all source categories unless the State demonstrates that a particular source category does not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels in excess of the NAAQS ( i. e., de minimis sources). See General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 ( April 16, 1992) and Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998, 42011 ( August 16, 1994).

The potential to emit of the emission activities subject to PCAQCD Rules 4 2 020, 4 2 030, 4 2 040, and 4 2 050 comprises a small but significant portion of the total PM 10 emissions in the Phoenix metropolitan area according to the August 1999 Apache Junction Portion of the Metropolitan Phoenix PM 10 Serious State Implementation Plan ( PM 10 Plan). Therefore, Rules 4 2 020, 4 2 030, 4 2 040, and 4 2 050 must meet BACM/ BACT control levels.

The incorporation of PCAQCD Rules 4 2 020, 4 2 030, 4 2 040, and 4 2 050 taken in combination improves the SIP. However, the rules contain several deficiencies that preclude full approval.

DEFICIENCIES Rules 4 2 020 and 4 2 030 contain the following deficiency:

$ Rule 4 2 020, Section B specifies that Article 4 " shall not be construed so as to prevent normal farm cultural practices which cause fugitive dust." Normal farm cultural practice is defined in Rule 4 2 030, Definition 2, as " all activities  conducted on any facility for the production of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products or poultry products." As written, Rule 4 2 020, Section B effectively exempts agricultural activities from the fugitive dust rules without justification.

Rules 4 2 030 and 4 2 040 contain the following deficiency:

$ Rule 4 2 030, Definition 3, defines " reasonable precaution" in highly general terms. The term " reasonable precaution" is then used in every section of Rule 4 2 040, to define what actions must be taken to mitigate fugitive dust emissions from relevant activities. This general requirement is not sufficiently clear or enforceable.

Rule 4 2 050 contains the following deficiency:

$ Rule 4 2 050 does not contain recordkeeping provisions. The absence of these provisions makes the all of the submitted rules difficult to enforce.

RECOMMENDED ACTION I recommend limited approval and limited disapproval of the following PCAQCD rules for incorporation into the Arizona Applicable SIP:

$ Rule 4 2 020, General [ Fugitive Dust] ( adopted June 29, 1993, submitted November 27, 1995, complete May 27, 1996).

$ Rule 4 2 030, Definitions [ Fugitive Dust] ( adopted June 29, 1993, submitted November 27, 1995, complete May 27, 1996).

$ Rule 4 2 040, Standards [ Fugitive Dust] ( adopted June 29, 1993, submitted November 27, 1995, complete May 27, 1996).

$ Rule 4 2 050, Monitoring and Records [ Fugitive Dust] ( amended May 14, 1997, submitted October 7, 1998, complete April 24, 1999). ATTACHMENTS 1. Rules 4 2 020, 4 2 030, 4 2 040, and 4 2 050.

2. PM 10 Guideline Document ( EPA 452/ R 93 008) ( cover only).

3. Apache Junction Portion of the Metropolitan Phoenix PM 10 Serious State Implementation Plan ( August, 1999) ( cover only).


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 22663]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-477-000]

Notice of Application: UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc. and UGI
Utilities, Inc.

    Take notice that on May 2, 2018, UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc. (CPG),
and UGI Utilities, Inc. (UGIU) (collectively, Applicants), both wholly-
owned direct subsidiaries of UGI Corporation and both currently located
at 2525 N. 12th Street, Reading, Pennsylvania 19605, filed in Docket
No. CP18-477-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(f) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations. Specifically, the Applicants request: (i) Authority to
abandon certain limited jurisdiction certificates for transportation
services held by CPG pertaining to its Maryland local gas distribution
system located in Maryland and Pennsylvania; and (ii) for transfer of
CPG's service area determination to UGIU. The Applicants state that the
requested authorizations are required to implement aspects of the
pending transfer of the local natural gas distribution assets from CPG
into UGIU pursuant to a corporate merger, 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 protected] or
call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Frank Merkle, Senior Counsel, UGI Corporation, Box 858, Valley Forge,
Pennsylvania 19482; or by email at [email protected].
    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 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 EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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 in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and five copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 31, 2018.

    Dated: May 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10400 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44864-44868]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18220]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0322; FRL-9931-13-Region 10] Approval and
Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon: Grants Pass Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a carbon monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
(LMP) for Grants Pass, submitted by the State of Oregon on April 22,
2015 as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). In
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is
approving this SIP revision because it demonstrates that Grants Pass
will continue to meet the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for a second 10-year period beyond re-designation,
through 2025.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 28, 2015, without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by August 27, 2015. If
the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0322, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov:
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Lucy Edmondson, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Lucy Edmondson, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2015-0322. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or
email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Edmondson at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
IV. Evaluation of Oregon's Submittal
V. Transportation and General Conformity

VI. Final Action
VII. Oregon Notice Provision
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the carbon
monoxide (CO) LMP for Grants Pass, Oregon. The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted this plan as a SIP revision, on
April 22, 2015. This CO LMP is designed to keep Grants Pass in
attainment with the CO standard for a second 10-year period beyond re-
designation, through 2025.

II. Background

    Under Section 107(d)(1)(c) of the CAA, each CO area designated
nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, such as Grants
Pass, was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment
of the 1990 Amendments. Under section 186(a) of the CAA, each CO area
designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by
operation of law as either ``moderate'' or ``serious'' depending on the
severity of the area's air quality problem. CO areas with design values
between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per million (ppm), such as Grants Pass, were
classified as moderate. These nonattainment designations and
classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81. (56 FR 56694)
(November 6, 1991).
    In August 2000, the EPA approved the first maintenance plan
designed to maintain compliance with the CO standard in Grants Pass, OR
through the year 2015 (see 65 FR 52932, August 31, 2000). While the
central business district represented the maintenance area, the EPA
considered the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to be a more representative
area of influence for carbon monoxide emissions, and the 1993 emission
inventory was prepared for the UGB. In addition to approving ODEQ's
maintenance plan for the area, the EPA also approved ODEQ's request to
redesignate the Grants Pass area to attainment of the CO standard (see
65 FR 52932, August 31, 2000). On November 5, 1999, Oregon submitted a
complete rule renumbering and relabeling package to EPA for approval in
the SIP. On January 22, 2003, EPA approved the recodified version of
Oregon's rules to remove and replace the outdated numbering system (68
FR 2891).
    Per CAA section 175A(b), Oregon's current SIP submittal provides a
second 10-year CO maintenance plan for Grants Pass that will apply
until 2025, and fulfill the final planning requirements under the CAA.
In addition, the plan is consistent with the elements of a LMP as
outlined in an EPA October 6, 1995 memorandum from Joseph Paisie, the
Group Leader of the Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, titled,
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas'' (LMP Option). To qualify for the LMP Option, the CO design
value for an area, based on the eight consecutive quarters (two years
of data) used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below 7.65 ppm
(85 percent of the CO NAAQS). In addition, the control measures from
the first CO maintenance plan must remain in place and unchanged. The
primary control measure has been the emission standards for new motor
vehicles under the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. Other control
measures have been the New Source Review Program and several
residential woodsmoke emission reduction efforts. The EPA has
determined that the LMP Option for CO is also available to all states
as part of the CAA 175A(b) update to the maintenance plans, regardless
of the original nonattainment classification, or lack thereof. Thus,
the EPA finds that Grants Pass qualifies for the LMP.

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision offer
a reasonable opportunity for notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by the State to the EPA. The
State provided notice and an opportunity for public comment from
December 16, 2014 until January 26, 2015, with no comments received.
ODEQ also held a public hearing on January 22, 2015 in Grants Pass.
This SIP revision was submitted by the Governor's designee and was
received by the EPA on April 22, 2015. The EPA has evaluated ODEQ's
submittal and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA.

IV. Evaluation of Oregon's Submittal

    The EPA has reviewed Oregon's SIP submittal for Grants Pass. The
following is a summary of the requirements for a LMP and the EPA's
evaluation of how each requirement has been met by the SIP submittal.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    The maintenance plan must contain an attainment year emissions
inventory to identify a level of CO emissions in the area that is
sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. The April 22, 2015 SIP submittal
contains a summary of the CO emissions inventory for Grants Pass for
the base year 2005. This summary is based on the Grants Pass Inventory
Preparation and Quality Assurance Plan for the Grants Pass Urban Growth
Boundary Limited Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, adopted March 2014.
    Historically, exceedances of the CO standard in Grants Pass have
occurred during the winter months, when cooler temperatures contribute
to incomplete combustion, and when CO emissions are trapped near the
ground by atmospheric inversions. The UGB was used for the initial 1993
emissions inventory, since it was more representative of the area of
influence for carbon monoxide emissions, and used again for the 2005
emission inventory in this LMP. Sources of carbon monoxide in Grants
Pass include industry, motor vehicles, non-road mobile sources, (e.g.,
construction equipment, recreational vehicles, lawn and garden
equipment, and area sources (e.g., outdoor burning, woodstoves,
fireplaces, and wildfires). The CO season is defined as three
consecutive months--December 1 through the end of February. As such,
season day emissions in addition to annual emissions are included in
the inventory. The unit of measure for annual emissions is in tons per
year (tpy), while the unit of measure for season day emissions is in
pounds per day (lb/day). In addition, the county-wide emissions
inventory data is spatially allocated to the Grants Pass UGB, and to
buffers around the UGB, depending on emissions category.
    Because violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on
winter weekdays, the inventory prepared is for a ``typical winter
day''. The table below shows the estimated tons of CO emitted per
winter day by source category for the 2005 base year.

        2005 Emissions Inventory, Main Source Category Subtotals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CO emissions
                  Main source category                      pounds per
                                                            winter day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources................................           1,202
Onroad Mobile Sources...................................          58,120
Non-road Mobile Sources.................................           6,289
Stationary Area Sources.................................          22,244
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................          87,855
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Demonstration of Maintenance

    The CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-hour
average CO concentration for an area does not exceed a concentration of
9.0 ppm. The last monitored violation of the CO

NAAQS in Grants Pass occurred in 1990, and CO levels have been steadily
in decline.
    For areas using the LMP Option, the maintenance plan demonstration
requirement is considered to be satisfied when the second highest 8-
hour CO concentration is at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO
NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters. The current 8-hour CO Design Value
for Grants Pass is 4.0 ppm based on the two most recent years of data
(2004-2005), which is significantly below the LMP Option requirement of
7.65 ppm. Therefore, the State has demonstrated that Grants Pass
qualifies for the LMP Option.
    With the LMP Option, there is no requirement to project emissions
of air quality over the upcoming maintenance period. The EPA believes
that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85 percent
of the level of the CO 8-hour NAAQS, the applicability of prevention of
significant deterioration requirements, the control measures already in
the SIP, and Federal control measures already in place will provide
adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period.

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    Monitored CO levels in the Grants Pass UGB steadily declined since
monitoring began in the area in 1980. CO levels have declined
significantly across the nation through motor vehicle emissions
controls and fleet turnover to newer, cleaner vehicle models. As CO
levels dropped and stayed low, Oregon requested to remove the Grants
Pass CO monitor in 2006, and the EPA approved the request on October
19, 2006. ODEQ now uses an alternate method of verifying continued
attainment with the CO standard.
    ODEQ calculates CO emissions every three years as part of the
Statewide Emissions Inventory and submits the data to the EPA for
inclusion in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). ODEQ commits to
review the NEI estimates to identify any increases over the 2005
emission levels and source categories, and report on them in the annual
network plan for the applicable year. Since on-road motor vehicles are
the predominant source of carbon monoxide in Grants Pass (about 70%),
this source category will be the primary focus of this review. ODEQ
will annually calculate CO emissions and evaluate any increase in CO
emissions to confirm it is not due to a change in emission calculation
methodology, an exceptional event, or other factor not representative
of an actual emissions increase. Recognizing there could be a minor,
insignificant emissions increase, for the purposes of triggering the
Contingency Plan described below, an increase of five percent in either
the total annual or season day emissions, or in the on-road mobile
source category, represents a ``significant'' emission increase.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions necessary to ensure prompt correction of any
violations of the standard that may occur. In its April 22, 2015
submittal, the State of Oregon included the following contingency
measures for this LMP:
    1. If ODEQ's three-year periodic review of CO emissions shows a
significant increase in emissions, as described in Section 8 of this
plan, ODEQ will then reestablish ambient CO monitoring in Grants Pass.
    2. If the highest measured 8-hour CO concentration in a given year
in Grants Pass exceeds the LMP eligibility level of 7.65 ppm (85
percent of the 8-hr standard), ODEQ will evaluate the cause of the CO
increase. Within six months of the validated 7.65 ppm CO concentration,
ODEQ will determine a schedule of selected strategies to either prevent
or correct any violation of the 8-hour CO standard. The contingency
strategies that will be considered include, but are not limited to:

 Improvements to parking and traffic circulation
 Aggressive signal retiming program
 Funding for transit
 Implementation of bicycle and pedestrian networks.

    ODEQ (and the advisory group if needed) may also conduct further
evaluation, to determine if other strategies are necessary.
    3. If a violation of the CO standard occurs, in addition to step
two above, ODEQ will replace the Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) requirement for new and modified stationary sources with the
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) technology, and reinstate the
requirement to offset any new CO emissions. Additional CO emission
reduction measures will be considered, as needed.

V. Transportation and General Conformity

    Federal transportation conformity rules (40 CFR parts 51 and 93)
and general conformity rules (58 FR 63214, November 30, 1993) continue
to apply under a LMP. However, as noted in the LMP Option memo, these
requirements are greatly simplified. An area under a LMP can
demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget, and as a
result, emissions do not need to be capped nor a regional emissions
analysis (including modeling) conducted. Grants Pass is currently
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
    In the June 24, 2015 adequacy finding for the Grants Pass CO LMP,
the EPA determined that Grants Pass has met the criteria to be exempt
from regional emissions analysis for CO. However, other transportation
conformity requirements such as consultation, transportation control
measures, and project level conformity requirements would continue to
apply to the area. With approval of the LMP, the area continues to be
exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet
project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation
conformity criteria mentioned above.

VI. Final Action

    In accordance with the requirements of the CAA, the EPA is
approving the CO LMP for Grants Pass, Oregon submitted by the State of
Oregon on April 22, 2015 as a revision to the Oregon SIP. The State has
adequately demonstrated that Grants Pass will maintain the CO NAAQS and
meet the requirements of a LMP through the second 10-year maintenance
period through 2025.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 28,
2015 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comments by
August 27, 2015. If the EPA receives such comments, then the EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received
will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule.
Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on September 28, 2015 and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule.

VII. Oregon Notice Provision

    Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a
penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit, unless
the source has been provided five days advanced written notice of the
violation, and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance
schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does
not apply to Oregon's Title V program or to any program if application
of the notice provision would disqualify the program from Federal
delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application
of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP,
no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of the Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition
for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 8, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1970, paragraph (e), the table entitled ``State of Oregon
Air Quality Control Program'' is amended by adding an entry after the
existing entries under ``Section 4'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
          SIP citation                Title/subject       effective date  EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 4

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                 Grants Pass Second 10-        4/16/2015  7/28/2015,         ...................
                                  Year Carbon Monoxide                     [Insert Federal
                                  Limited Maintenance                      Register
                                  Plan.                                    citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-18220 Filed 7-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


"Jim Hardin"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 12/21/2007 08:53 AM

To

Glenn Passavant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Michael Samulski/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Diurnal Implementation Proposal for marine fuel systems

Glenn and Mike,

From our perspective any type of allowance system creates one basic

problem that exists regardless of the allowance numbers.  It creates a

disadvantage to any builder who manufacturers a higher volume of boats.

As a small business, we would have to install diurnal controls on over

50% of our units while most of our direct competitors will have to

install no controls until the last year of the allowance system.  This

scheme allows our competitors who construct less than 400 boats to delay

any and all price increases associated with these controls until the

last year of the phase-in.  This, in-effect, means the USEPA is exerting

unjust regulations that show favoritism towards any builder who happens

to have a low unit production.  This is creating a competitive advantage

for one small business over another should be avoided.  A percentage

phase-in approach treats all small businesses the same.

One other advantage that a 30/60/100 phase-in offers an decrease in the

probability of safety related issues.  High volume boat builders will

have to implement these changes on a majority of their units in the

first year.  Demands for engineering and training resources will be high

and the likelihood of problems will increase as the volume of changes

increases.  The additional time a percentage phase-in offers also allows

each manufacturer to increase the internal corporate knowledge regarding

the system.

The percentage phase-in will limit exposure from potential problems in

the first year.  It could be catastrophic for a higher volume producer

to have to recall more than 50% of their annual production if some

component fails or there is some unforeseen problem.  An approach that

phases-in on a more even basis allows experience to be gained and

adjustments can be made based upon lessons learned and experience in the

field.  There is no testing that is as demanding as placing the new

system in the field and into the customer's hands.

When it comes to the safety aspect, I believe a prudent even phase-in

offers time to all boat builders to learn and adjust as we institute

these requirements.  The allowance proposal will not offer the learning

curve that a 30/60/100 percentage phase-in will allow.

Sincerely,

Jim Hardin

Compliance Manager

Grady-White Boats, Inc.

PO Box 1527

Greenville NC  27835-1527

Phone-<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 270

Fax-<PHONE_NUMBER>

Cell-<PHONE_NUMBER>

Email-<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:40 PM

To: Jim Hardin

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Diurnal Implementation Proposal for marine fuel systems

Hi Jim:

Thanks for your reply.  we look forward to more information on how our

allowance concept of 1200 units total over two years would work for

Grady White and other small manufacturers.

GLENN W. PASSAVANT

ASSESSMENT & STANDARDS DIVISION

OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY US EPA

734-214-4408


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15680]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-530-000]

Red Shield Environmental, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 26, 2007.
    Red Shield Environmental, LLC (Red Shield) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The
proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and
capacity at market-based rates. Red Shield also requested waivers of
various Commission regulations. In particular, Red Shield requested
that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Red
Shield.
    On March 20, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Rates--West, granted the requests for blanket
approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the
Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal Register
establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly,
any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of
issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Red Shield
should file a motion to intervene or protest 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, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Red Shield is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person, provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Red Shield, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Red Shield's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5942 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 56691]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-2308-000]

Sapphire Power Marketing LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Sapphire Power Marketing LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 September 30, 2013.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 9, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22277 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 17271-17273]
[DOCID:fr14ap09-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59713; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Trade Reporting Transfers of
Proprietary Securities Positions in Connection With Certain Corporate
Control Transactions

April 6, 2009.
    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 April 3, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and paragraph (f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon receipt of this filing by 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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA trade reporting rules to codify
the reporting requirements applicable to over-the-counter (``OTC'')
transfers of proprietary positions in debt and equity securities
between a member and another member or non-member broker-dealer
effected in connection with certain corporate control transactions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    FINRA trade reporting rules require that OTC transactions in debt
and equity securities be reported to FINRA unless they qualify for an
express exception under the rules.\5\ For purposes of the trade
reporting rules, a ``trade'' or ``transaction'' entails a beneficial
change of ownership of securities between parties (e.g., a purchase or
sale of securities) in which a FINRA member participates.\6\ As a
general matter, when members report trades to a FINRA trade reporting
facility, FINRA facilitates the public dissemination of the trade
information and/or assesses regulatory transaction fees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rules 6282, 6380A, 6380B, 6622 and 6730.
    \6\ See Trade Reporting Frequently Asked Questions, FAQ 100.4,
available at http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/Guidance/
P038942.
    \7\ Certain trades are reported to FINRA, but not for
publication purposes (referred to as ``non-tape reports''). For
example, FINRA rules require members to submit non-tape reports for
transactions that are effected upon the exercise of an OTC option or
for ``away from the market sales'' (e.g., a gift between two
parties). The non-tape reports are used for audit trail and
regulatory fee assessment purposes only and are not reported to the
appropriate exclusive Securities Information Processor (``SIP'') for
public dissemination. See Rules 6282(i)(2) and 7130(c) (relating to
the Alternative Display Facility); 6380A(e)(2) and 7230A(g)
(relating to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility); 6380B(e)(2)
and 7230B(f) (relating to the FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility);
and 6622(e)(2) and 7330(g) (relating to the OTC Reporting Facility).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Occasionally, broker-dealers may transfer proprietary securities
positions, along with other assets, in connection with corporate
control transactions such as mergers and acquisitions. Such transfers
are ``trades'' or ``transactions'' because they result in a change of
beneficial ownership, but unlike the typical securities transaction,
they are not driven by a trading or investment strategy (e.g., a desire
to exit a position or lock in a profit) relating to a particular
security position. Rather, the transfers are in furtherance of the
consolidation of the broker-dealers' separate sales and proprietary
trading businesses. Additionally, the securities that are transferred
typically are assigned a value, such as the closing price of the
security on a date certain, solely for purposes of effectuating the
transfer.
    As such, FINRA believes that public dissemination of such transfers
would not provide meaningful price discovery information to the market.
To the contrary, dissemination could confuse investors and other market
participants, particularly where the positions being transferred are
substantial. Public dissemination of significant and perhaps unusual
trading activity could give the false impression of investor interest,
market participant transactions and significant price discovery
activities, and the volume reports could skew a variety of trading
activity indicators.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Similarly, FINRA amended its trade reporting rules to
clarify that in the limited circumstance where securities are
transferred pursuant to an asset purchase agreement (``APA''), such
transfer does not have to be reported if (1) the APA is subject to
the jurisdiction and approval of a court of competent jurisdiction
in insolvency matters; and (2) the purchase price under the APA is
not based on, and cannot be adjusted to reflect, the current market
prices of the securities on or following the effective date of the
APA. FINRA believes that transfers effected pursuant to an APA under
these circumstances are not trade reportable events and that
reporting and dissemination of these transfers would not provide
meaningful price discovery information to the market. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59126 (December 19, 2008), 73 FR 79948
(December 30, 2008) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
SR-FINRA-2008-060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to amend its trade reporting rules
to clarify

that members are not required to report to FINRA for purposes of
publication transfers of proprietary securities positions between a
member and another member or non-member broker-dealer where the
transfer (1) is effected in connection with a merger of one broker-
dealer with the other broker-dealer or a direct or indirect acquisition
of one broker-dealer by the other broker-dealer or the other broker-
dealer's parent company and (2) is not in furtherance of a trading or
investment strategy. However, while such transfers are not reportable
for publication purposes, they nonetheless must be reported to FINRA
for purposes of assessing applicable regulatory transaction fees
pursuant to Section 3 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws \9\ and/or
trading activity fees under Section 1(b) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-
Laws.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Pursuant to Section 31 of the Act, FINRA and the national
securities exchanges are required to pay transaction fees and
assessments to the SEC that are designed to recover the costs
related to the government's supervision and regulation of the
securities markets and securities professionals. FINRA obtains its
Section 31 fees and assessments from its membership, in accordance
with Section 3 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
    \10\ The trading activity fee is used by FINRA solely to fund
its member regulatory activities, including the supervision and
regulation of members through examinations, financial monitoring,
policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. See
Section 1(a) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, with respect to equity securities, FINRA is proposing
to amend Rule 6282(i)(2) and paragraph (e)(2) of Rules 6380A, 6380B and
6622, which provisions identify the transactions that are not required
to be reported for publication, but must be reported for regulatory fee
assessment purposes. FINRA also is proposing corresponding amendments
to Rules 7130(c), 7230A(g), 7230B(f) and 7330(g), which provisions set
forth the specific reporting requirements for trades reported for
regulatory transaction fee assessment purposes. With respect to debt
securities, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 6750(b), which identifies
the transactions in TRACE-eligible securities that are reported, but
not disseminated.
    The distinguishing factor is whether the position transfer is being
effected as part of an overall sale and the consolidation of the
broker-dealers' separate proprietary trading businesses (in which case
it would fall within the proposed exception) rather than being driven
by a trading or investment strategy (in which case it would not fall
within the exception). For example, as a result of a corporate control
transaction, a member, Firm 1, acquires all of the assets of another
member (or non-member broker-dealer), Firm 2, or Firm 1's parent
company acquires Firm 2, such that Firm 1 and Firm 2 become wholly
owned by the same parent company. In connection with the corporate
control transaction, Firm 1 and Firm 2 consolidate their separate sales
and trading businesses onto a single platform and, along with the
migration of sales and trading personnel, clients and systems and
technology, Firm 2's proprietary positions are transferred to Firm 1.
In this instance, the transfer from Firm 2 to Firm 1 would fall within
the proposed exception and would not be reportable for publication
purposes, but must be reported for regulatory purposes.
    By way of further example, a member, Firm 1 and another member (or
non-member broker-dealer), Firm 2, currently are wholly owned by the
same parent company and operate separately. Firm 1 owns 100,000 shares
of ABCD security and the value of ABCD has increased substantially
since Firm 1 purchased the shares. As part of an investment strategy,
Firm 1 sells the shares to Firm 2. In this instance, the sale from Firm
1 to Firm 2 would not fall within the proposed exception and must be
reported for publication purposes.
    The proposed rule change would expressly limit the exception to
transfers between two members or between a member and a non-member
broker-dealer that are effected in connection with a merger of one
broker-dealer with the other broker-dealer or a direct or indirect
acquisition of one broker-dealer by the other broker-dealer or the
other broker-dealer's parent company. FINRA notes that these corporate
control transactions are among the changes in a member's ownership or
control that would trigger the notice requirements and membership
application process under FINRA rules.\11\ Thus, the proposed exception
generally would apply where the merger or acquisition would require the
member to submit notice and/or an application under FINRA rules.
However, because FINRA membership application rules are broader than
the scope of the proposed trade reporting exception, FINRA is
clarifying that the proposed exception will not be considered satisfied
merely because a member has submitted an application or notice under
FINRA membership rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NASD Rule 1017(a)(1) and (2). See also, Incorporated
NYSE Rule 312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, members will be required to
report in the manner prescribed by FINRA to designate that the reports
are submitted for regulatory and not publication purposes.\12\ Members
generally should report to FINRA on the same day as the ultimate
transfer of the positions on their books and records, unless later
reporting is warranted under specific circumstances.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FINRA will publish a Notice setting forth the specific
reporting requirements applicable to the proposed exception. Members
also should refer to the applicable technical specifications for the
FINRA facility to which they are reporting trades.
    \13\ FINRA expects that in most instances, if members cannot
report on the same day that the transfers are reflected on their
books and records (for example, if the transfers take place after
the close of the FINRA trade reporting facilities), members will
report no later than the following business day (T+1). However,
FINRA recognizes that for some transfers, manual processing may be
required or other operational issues may arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, members will be required to provide FINRA at least
three business days advance written notice of their intent to use this
exception, including the basis for their determination that the
transfer meets the terms of the exception. FINRA notes that while the
advance notice requirement is not intended to establish a protocol for
prior approval by FINRA, it may help reduce the potential for improper
use of the proposed exception. Advance written notice to FINRA shall
not constitute an estoppel as to FINRA or bind FINRA in any subsequent
administrative, civil or disciplinary proceeding with respect to a
member's use of the proposed exception. In other words, advance notice
to FINRA should not be taken to mean that FINRA approved the
transaction as properly qualifying under the terms of the exception. A
member relying on the proposed exception must ensure that the transfer
satisfies the terms of the exception.
    Finally, FINRA is proposing certain technical, non-substantive
changes to these rules. First, FINRA is proposing to reorganize Rules
7130(c), 7230A(g), 7230B(f) and 7330(g), and to delete the references
to the ``.RA'' and ``.RX'' modifiers in the rules.\14\ Second, FINRA is
proposing to change the heading of paragraph (b) of Rule 6750 to
``Transaction Information Not Disseminated,'' and to create new
numbered subparagraphs for the transactions that are reported to the

Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE''), but not
disseminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This is consistent with Rules 6282, 6380A and 6380B, which
no longer refer to specific labels (e.g., ``.PRP'' or ``.W'') for
the trade report modifiers that members are required to use when
reporting trades to FINRA. Rather, the rules identify the types of
transactions that must have a unique modifier associated with them
and such modifiers are labeled in the facility's technical
specifications rather than in the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be
30 days after the date of filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be 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. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
clarify members' trade reporting obligations, enhance market
transparency and protect investors and other market participants by
ensuring that transfers that do not contribute to market price
discovery and could confuse market participants are not disseminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
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 \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Number SR-FINRA-2009-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-024. 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, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-024 and should be
submitted on or before May 5, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-8417 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 26)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7234-7236]
[DOCID:fr07fe08-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0069; A-1-FRL-8526-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Determination of Attainment of the Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that the Boston-Manchester-
Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
has attained the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone. This determination is based upon certified ambient air
monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS since the 2002-2004 monitoring period, and continues
to monitor attainment of the NAAQS based on 2004-2006 data. In
addition, quality controlled and quality assured ozone data for 2007
that are available in the EPA Air Quality System database, but not yet
certified, show this area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
If this proposed determination is made final, the requirements for this
area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plans related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the
ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2008-0069 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0069,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ),
Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2008-0069. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-

mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100, 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 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA
02114-2023, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth
(SE), New Hampshire moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone. This determination is based upon certified ambient air
monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the
ozone NAAQS since the 2002-2004 monitoring period, and monitoring data
that continue to show attainment of the NAAQS based on 2004-2006 data.
In addition, quality controlled and quality assured ozone data for 2007
that are available in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database, but
not yet certified, show this area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS.

II. What Is the Effect of This Action?

    If this determination is made final, under the provisions of EPA's
ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR Section 51.918), the requirements
for the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire moderate ozone
nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable
further progress plan, section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and any
other planning State Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS would be suspended for so long as the area
continues to attain the ozone NAAQS.
    This proposed action, if finalized, would not constitute a
redesignation to

attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3), because we would not yet have
an approved maintenance plan for the area as required under section
175A of the CAA, nor a determination that the area has met the other
requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation
status of the area would remain moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that it meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment.
    If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines,
after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the
area has violated the 8-hour ozone standard, the basis for the
suspension of these requirements would no longer exist, and the area
would thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA designated as nonattainment
any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three
most recent years (2001-2003) of air quality data. Portions of
Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham, and Strafford Counties in New
Hampshire were designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area
(specifically, the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire
area). The rest of New Hampshire was designated as attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. (See 40 CFR 81.330.) More recent air quality data,
however, indicate that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New
Hampshire area is now attaining the 8-hour ozone standard.

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

    The EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone,
consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 50 and
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database, for the Boston-
Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire ozone nonattainment area,
from 2002 through the present time. On the basis of that review, EPA
has concluded that this area attained the 8-hour ozone standard at the
end of the 2004 ozone season, based on certified 2002-2004 ozone data,
and continued to attain the standard through and inclusive of the 2004-
2006 ozone seasons. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured
ozone data for 2007, that are available in AQS, but not yet certified,
show this area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard
is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less
than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm) (i.e., 0.084 ppm, based
on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I). This 3-year
average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is
less than or equal to 0.084 ppm (84 parts per billion (ppb)) at each
monitor within the area, then the area is meeting the NAAQS. (See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information.) Also, the data
completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year
has less than 75% data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40
CFR Part 50.
    Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations for the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire
nonattainment area monitors for the years 2004-2007. Table 2 shows the
ozone design values for these same monitors based on the following 3-
year periods: 2002-2004; 2003-2005; 2004-2006; and 2005-2007.

  Table 1.--Fourth-High 8-Hour Ozone Average Concentrations (Parts Per Million, PPM) in the Boston-Manchester-
                                       Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Location                      AQS site ID       2004         2005         2006         2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester..................................       330110020        0.071        0.071        0.068        0.074
Nashua......................................       330111011        0.080        0.082        0.073        0.081
Portsmouth..................................       330150014        0.076        0.075        0.073        0.078
Rye.........................................       330150016        0.074        0.075        0.076        0.086
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Table 2.--Ozone Design Values (PPM) for the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Location                      AQS site ID    2002-2004    2003-2005    2004-2006    2005-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester..................................       330110020        0.075        0.070        0.070        0.071
Nashua......................................       330111011        0.084        0.080        0.078        0.078
Portsmouth..................................       330150014        0.079        0.074        0.074        0.075
Rye.........................................       330150016        0.078        0.073        0.075        0.079
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's review of these data indicate that the Boston-Manchester-
Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire ozone nonattainment area has met and
continues to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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 the EPA New England Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth
(SE), New Hampshire 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-
hour ozone standard and continues to attain the standard based on data
through the 2007 ozone season. As provided in 40 CFR Section 51.918, if
EPA finalizes this determination, it would suspend the requirements for
New Hampshire to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable
further progress plan, and contingency measures under section
172(c)(9), and any other planning SIP related to attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for this area, for so long as the area continues to
attain the standard.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory

action'' and therefore is 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). This action proposes to make a determination
based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain Federal requirements. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and would,
if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements,
it 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).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain
Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to determine
that air quality in the affected area is meeting Federal standards.
    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
because it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when
determining the attainment status of an area, to use voluntary
consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality standards and
monitoring procedures that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the
Clean Air Act.
    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq.)
    Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule involves a
proposed determination of attainment based on air quality data and will
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any communities in the area, including
minority and low-income communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 30, 2008.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
 [FR Doc. E8-2251 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P