[Federal Register: September 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51428-51429]
[DOCID:fr07se07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combine Notice of Filings 1

August 31, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER97-2801-019, ER99-2156-012, ER96-719-018.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp; Cordova energy Company LLC; MidAmerican
Energy Company.
    Description: PacifiCorp et al. submits a notice of change in status
under Market-Based Rate Authority filing in compliance with Order 697l.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070829-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1762-005, ER06-1272-003.
    Applicants: Reliant Energy Solutions East, LLC; Reliant Energy
Power Supply, LLC.
    Description: Reliant Energy Solutions East, LLC et al. submits a
notice of change in status in accordance with Order 652.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070831-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-925-018.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc submits Notice of Non-
Material Change in Status pursuant to the Commission's Order 652.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070830-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1420-003.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO, Inc submits a response to Commission's
letter order of 3/06/07 seeking additional information re Transmission
& Deliverability Studies etc. under ER06-1420.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070829-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-944-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits its compliance
filing.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070829-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1036-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits its responses to
FERC's request for additional information that identified certain
deficiencies in the submitted filing of 6/14/07.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070831-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1070-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company re-files the Agreement
for Generator Balancing Service with New Hope Power Partnership dated
6/21/07 etc. in compliance with FERC's 8/20/07 letter order.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070830-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1147-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp agent for Indiana
Michigan Power Co. submits an amendment to Original Sheet No.1 of the
LA2 to provide the correct designation w/Michigan Electric Transmission
Co., LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070830-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1157-001.
    Applicants: Logan Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Logan Wind Energy LLC submits Substitute Original
Sheet 2 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No.1, to be
effective 7/19/07.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070823-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1179-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits an errata to
its 7/20/07 filing of Large Facilities Agreement and two Small
Facilities Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070830-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 7, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1299-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement with Savage Mountain Wind Force LLC .
    Filed Date: 08/22/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070823-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1301-000, ER07-1301-001.
    Applicants: Elwood Energy, LLC.
    Description: Elwood Energy LLC submits its Rate Schedule FERC 2,
its revenue requirement for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from
Generation Sources Service and 8/29 an amended copy of the original
filing.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070827-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1302-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: The American Electric Power Service Corp agent for
Kentucky Power Company et al. submits an amended and restated
interconnection agreement with E.ON U.S. Services Inc.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070829-0040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1303-000.
    Applicants: PS Energy Group, Inc.
    Description: PS Energy Group Inc submits petition for acceptance of
initial tariff, waivers and blanket authority &

requests acceptance of FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070829-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1304-000; Er07-805-002.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
CAISO-WECC Billing Services Agreement.
    Description: The California Independent System Operator Corp
submits the Billing Services Agreement with Western Electricity
Coordinating Council in compliance with FERC's Order issued on 6/25/07.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070829-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1305-000.
    Applicants: Port Washington Generating Station, LLC.
    Description: Port Washington Generating Station, LLC submits a
Power Purchase Agreement providing Sales of Test Power with Wisconsin
Electric Power Co.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070828-0177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1306-000.
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
    Description: NedPower Mount Storm LLC submits FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070828-0176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1307-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: The American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf of
AEP Operating Companies requests acceptance of the First Revised
Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with Town of
Avilla, Indiana.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070828-0178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1308-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Company.
    Description: Nevada Power Co and Sierra Pacific Power Co submit a
filing to modify their Open Access Transmission Tariff Schedule 10 Loss
Compensation Service.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070830-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1309-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.
    Description: Dynegy Oakland, LLC submits revised tariff sheets to
their reliability Must-Run Agreement with California Independent System
Operator Corp.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070831-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1310-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Alabama Power Co et al submit information pertaining
to Southern Companies' recovery of Post-Retirement Benefits other than
Pensions.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070831-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1312-000.
    Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Co submits a revised
Interconnection and Operations Agreement with Berkshire Power Co, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070831-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR07-16-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: North American Electric Reliability submits its 2008
Business Plan and Budget, the 2008 Business Plans and Budgets of
Regional Entities.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070829-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 21, 2007.
    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 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17692 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34884-34885]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-484-000]

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on June 28, 2019, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline
LLC (Kinder Morgan), at 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002,
filed an application in the above reference docket an application
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to construct
certain facilities. Kinder Morgan proposes to construct, and operate
the Acadiana Project (Project). The Project involves the: (1)
Installation of three (3) new gas fired compressor units totaling
95,700 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) horsepower
at Kinder Morgan's existing Compressor Station No. 760 in Acadia
Parish, Louisiana, (2) modifications to meter piping at Kinder Morgan's
existing Columbia Gulf Transmission Meter Station in Evangeline Parish,
Louisiana, and (3) the installation of auxiliary facilities at both
locations, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's website 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 TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Bruce
H. Newsome, Vice President, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC, 3250
Lacey Road, 7th Floor, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, the Project will allow Kinder Morgan to increase firm
north-to-south transportation capacity on its system by 894,000
dekatherms per day (Dth/d) from existing pipeline that interconnects to
an existing delivery point with Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC (SPL) at
SPL's liquefied natural gas export terminal at Sabine Pass in Cameron
Parish, Louisiana. The expansion capacity (894,000 Dth/d) will be
combined with 145,000 Dth/d of existing system capacity that has been
reserved for the Project to enable Kinder Morgan to meet the request of
SPL, which has executed a binding precedent agreement with Kinder
Morgan for 945,000 Dth/d of transportation capacity for delivery of
feedstock gas to the SPL Export Terminal. The estimated cost of the
Project is $143,048,567.
    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.
    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 seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. 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, and will be
notified of any 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 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 7 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 August 2, 2019.

    Dated: July 12, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15373 Filed 7-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41422]
[DOCID:fr17au09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13500-000]

Lock + TM Hydro Friends Fund XI, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 7, 2009.
    On June 2, 2009, Lock + TM Hydro Friends Fund XI, LLC, filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Mean Green Hydroelectric
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Jackson County,
Iowa and Jo Daviess County, Illinois.
    The proposed Mean Green Project would be located at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 12, near
Bellevue, Iowa.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) One new underwater frame
module containing nine turbines with a total installed capacity of
about 6.4 megawatts which would be installed in the Corps' unused
auxiliary lock located adjacent to the Corps' active lock; (2) a new
removable lock door; (3) a new switchyard, transformer, and control
room which would be located on the Iowa side of the river; (4) a new
1000-foot-long, 36.7 kilovolt transmission line, which would deliver
power from the turbines to an existing transformer tie-in bus located
at the Corps' lock and dam facilities; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
The Mean Green Project would have an estimated average annual
generation of about 53,039 megawatts-hours, which would be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne F. Krouse, Managing Partner, Lock +
Hydro Friends Fund XI, 5090 Richmond Avenue 390, Houston, TX
77056,<PHONE_NUMBER> x709.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13500) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19619 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                    NACOSH TWI Workgroup 9-21-15 Call Notes
Attendees:
Robin Baker, Univ. of CA Berkeley, NACOSH
Lisa Brosseau, Univ. of IL, Chicago, NACOSH
Bill Bunn, NACOSH
Mark Carleson, NACOSH
Rick Ingram, BP, NACOSH
Peg Seminario, AFL-CIO, NACOSH
Joe Van Houten, Johnson & Johnson, NACOSH
Sharon Pancamo, Elwood Staffing (volunteer)
La Tanya Rouse-James, ASA (volunteer)
Rebecca Zaror, Kelly Services (volunteer)
Mandy Edens, OSHA
Michelle Walker, OSHA
Orlando Pannocchia, SOL
Myrna Butkovitz, OSHA

Discussion

Assignment of Responsibility - Regulatory Guidance

   * There is no statutory or regulatory guidance that is specific and this has created challenges for OSHA.
   * OSHA is taking care to not "push" responsibilities of host to agency.
   * OSHA is processing based on specific cases.
   * Need to take care in understanding how staffing agency employee can participate in investigations, providing feedback, etc.
   * Can't shift responsibility in contract - Have we been clear on this in our documents?
   * OSHA DEP will review documents and provide feedback.

Occupational Health

   * Consensus that tracking of occupational health exposures and medical surveillance is "really hard" and that there are "no great answers" for temporary and contract workers.
   * What would be a best practice for maintaining records for this worker segment, e.g. taking advantage of smart phones?
   * Suggestion agreed to:  Add as in-scope for next phase which expands to include multiemployer worksites and contractors.
   * Suggestion agreed to:  Recommend to NACOSH chair and OSHA that this be an agenda item for discussion in December committee meeting.  Related question - Who do we need from OSHA for this discussion?

Public Participation

   * Confirmation in process on how public accesses documents to provide feedback.

Document Review

   * Workgroup members to provide feedback directly to authors.
   * Target is to have documents ready to release to NACOSH by end of October call (10/16 11a eastern).
   * Continue processing documents via email leading up to October call.
   * Relevance of documents to workers.  Question raised on whether documents will be helpful to workers.  Suggestion that a one pager be created specific to workers.  Johnson to follow-up with Martinez as COSH may have some work underway on this.
   * Staffing industry overview.  Key question:  Are second two pages of value?  Please provide feedback.  Otherwise near final.
   * Introduction.  Near final.
   * Program outline.  Near final.
   * Survey.  Near final.
   * Sample procedure.  Suggestion:  Either expand general responsibilities or delete as covered in other documents.  Otherwise near final.

Action Items

   1. OSHA DEP review of documents sensitive to assignment of responsibility.  OSHA DEP.
   2. Request to NACOSH Chair and OSHA to add occupational health exposure tracking and medical monitoring to NACOSH agenda including OSHA representative(s) present for discussion.  Johnson.
   3. Add occupational health issue as in scope for next phase for workgroup to cover multiemployer worksites and contractors.  Johnson.
   4. Final document editing based on feedback from workgroup.  All.
   5. COSH follow-up on worker content for temporary.  Johnson.


47 " attain the NAAQS", NAAQS," a plan to obtain reasonable periodic reductions towards the goal of attainment and other related requirements. The EPA continues to believe that the statutory requirement for an attainment demonstration   a SIP revision which identifies the level of future reductions needed to achieve the NAAQS and any additional adopted measures needed to achieve these future reductions   is written so as to be inapplicable once the NAAQS is attained. In addition, EPA believes that the RACM requirements are a " component" of an area's attainment demonstration under section 172( c)( 1). General Preamble 57 FR 13560 ( April 16, 1992). Thus, since for the same reason the attainment demonstration is no longer an applicable requirementapplies by its own terms, RACM is also no longer an applicable requirementapplies. The EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to reasonable further progress or to attainment General Preamble 57 FR 13498 ( April 16, 1992). Thus, where an area hasis already attainedattaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required. The EPA's interpretation that the statute requires only implementation of RACM measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F. 3d 735, 743 745 ( 5th Cir. 2002) and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F. 3d 155, 162 163 ( D. C. Cir. 2002). See also the final rulemakings for Pittsburgh Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53096 ( October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, 68 FR 25428 ( May 12, 2003). 15 Likewise, EPA concludes that the provision for RFP   a plan for annual incremental reductions leading to attainment   is also expressed in terms that show that RFP is unnecessary oncein areas attaining the standard. , For areas in attainment is reached. If the goal of attainment has been met, there is no longer a need to plan for measures to meet that goal. Similarly, EPA continues to believe that the contingency measure requirements of section 172( c)( 9) are no longer applicable onceapply in an area has 48 attainedthat is attaining the standard since those " contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date." ( See 57 FR 13564; April 16, 1992). The section 182( c)( 9) contingency measure requirement also no longer applies once an area has attained the standard. The EPA's interpretation of the statute is consistent with the statute's plain language. To the extent that the statutory language is ambiguous, the interpretation is reasonable and must be upheld under Chevron, USA Inc v. NRDC , 467 US 837, 842 45 ( 1984). CAA section 172( c)( 2) and the related provisions of Subpart 2 provide that reasonable further progress is required only where an area continues to violate the standard. By definition, the " reasonable further progress" provision requires only such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. If an area has attained the standard, the stated purpose of the reasonable further progress provision has been fulfilled. SAlso, section 172( c)( 1) and the related provisions of Subpart 2 provide that require SIPS shall to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. ( See also section 182( b)( 1)( A)( i) which requires that SIPS for moderate ozone nonattainment areas must " provide for such specific annual reductions in emissions of [ VOCs] and [ NOx] as necessary to attain the [ ozone NAAQS]" by the applicable attainment date .) When an area has attained the NAAQS, there is no need for a plan demonstrating how it will reach attainment, and thus the attainment demonstration provision is no longer applicable applies. Similarly section 172( c)( 9) and the related provisions of Subpart 2 provide that SIPs in nonattainment areas shall provide for contingency measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Since contingency measures are required only if reasonable further progress or attainment is not achieved, there is no need for them where the area has attained the standard. The language of these statutory provisions indicates that Congress intended that when an area has attained the standard these requirements designed to attain the standard are no longer applicable to itapply as the purpose of these provisions   attainment   has been accomplished. The EPA believes that Whitman does not provide a basis to reconsider our position on the Clean Data Policy. In Whitman, the Court was addressing EPA's stated approach that subpart 2 did not apply for purposes of implementing the 8 hour NAAQS. In the Phase 1 rule, EPA addressed the Court's decision and concluded that subpart 2 does apply. The issue here is not whether it applies, but how those requirements apply under a specific situation where an area has attained the NAAQS. That issue was not addressed by the Court in Whitman. In Whitman the Supreme Court was considering which subpart of part D of the CAA should 49 be used for implementation of the newly promulgated 8 hour NAAQS. The decision in Whitman has no bearing on the question of whether an area that has demonstrated attainment must nonetheless submit an attainment demonstration plan and related requirements. Thus, Whitman does not undermine the Tenth Circuit's reasoning in Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 ( 10th Circuit, 1996). See also the post Whitman decisions in Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 637 ( 7th Circuit, 2004), and Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04 73032, memorandum opinion ( 9th Circuit, June 28, 2005) rejecting a challenges to the Clean Data Policy and upholding a redesignation actions based on the policy. 10. How will RFP be addressed in Tribal areas? [ Section VI. I. 11. of June 2, 2003 proposed rule ( 68 FR 32835); no draft or final regulatory text.] a. Background The TAR provides flexibility for Tribes in the preparation of a TIP to address the NAAQS. As mentioned in the proposed rulemaking, the TAR provides the Tribes with the ability to develop TIPs to address and implement the NAAQS in Indian country. It further provides the Tribes with flexibility to develop these plans in a modular way, as long as the elements of their TIPs are reasonably " severable." For example, each TIP submission must include a demonstration that the Tribe has authority to develop and run its program, the ability to enforce its rules, and the capacity and resources to implement the program it adopts. Therefore, it may include one or two sourcespecific requirements but may not include provisions for RFP and other SIP requirements. The proposal noted that these TIPs can be an important step in addressing an overall air quality plan to achieve health and environmental goals on Tribal lands. Where a Tribe chooses not to address a specific planning element, EPA may be obligated to step in. Such action would not preclude a Tribe from addressing those elements at a later time. b. Summary of policy We intend to take the approach noted in the proposal. There is no regulatory text for this intention. c. Comments and responses No comments were received on this portion of the proposal. 11. How will RFP targets be calculated? [ Section VI. I. 12. of June 2, 2003 proposed rule ( 68 FR 32836); § 51.910( c) of the draft and final regulatory text.] a. Background We proposed a methodology for the calculation of RFP target levels of emissions that is based on the method we developed for the 1 hour standard, while taking into account our interpretation of CAA restrictions on creditable emissions and our proposal to use the 2002 inventory as the baseline inventory for the RFP 50 requirement. The CAA specifies four types of measures that were not creditable toward the 15 percent RFP requirement. These are: ( 1) Any measure relating to motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions promulgated by the Administrator by January 1, 1990. ( 2) Regulations concerning Reid Vapor Pressure ( RVP) promulgated after 1990 or required under section 211( h). ( 3) Measures required under section 182( a)( 2)( A) to correct deficiencies in SIPs regarding VOC RACT regulations required prior to enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990. ( 4) State regulations submitted to correct deficiencies in I/ M existing or required programs. These four types of measures were all expected to result in a decrease in emissions between 1990 and 1996. Of these four types of measures, RACT and I/ M program corrections and the 1992 RVP requirements were completely in place by 1996 and therefore are already accounted for in the 2002 baseline. As a result, they would produce no additional reductions between 2002 and 2008 or later milestone years. However, the pre 1990 Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program ( FMVCP) will continue to provide additional benefits during the first two decades of the 21st century as remaining vehicles meeting pre 1990 standards are removed from the vehicle fleet. Because these benefits are not creditable for RFP purposes, in order to calculate the target level of emissions for future RFP milestone years ( i. e., 2008, 2011, etc.), States must first calculate the reductions that would occur over these future years as a result of the pre 1990 FMVCP. We proposed three methods to properly account for the non creditable reductions when calculating RFP targets for the 2008 and later RFP milestone years. b. Summary of final rule The calculation methods have been revised to account for NOx and for other emissions models. They appear as appendix A of this preamble. These methods are consistent with the requirements of sections 182( b)( 1)( C) and ( D) and 182( c)( 2)( B) of the CAA. c. Comments and responses Comment: One commenter agreed that the base emission level should be decreased by the pre 1990 FMVCP reductions ( 1990 I/ M program and fuel RVP of 9.0 or 7.8 psi). However, the commenter further recommended that the pre 1990 FMVCP reductions be calculated using the I/ M program and fuel properties in effect during the new baseline year of 2002. The commenter claimed an advantage of the recommended change is that it removes from the non creditable pre 1990 FMVCP reductions, creditable reductions from controls implemented prior to 2003 ( such as improvements to the I/ M program or cleaner gasoline). 16The final interim implementation guidance of 1997 referenced the proposed interim implementation policy of December 13, 1996, which said, " The EPA believes that this additional flexibility for States in their ROP SIP's is consistent with the CAA, since reductions from outside a nonattainment area within these limits contribute to progress toward attainment within the area. The 3 percent per year ROP requirement is a general rate of progress 51 The commenter claimed that the EPA proposal specifies using the MOBILE6 command NO CAA in the calculation of the noncreditable emissions reductions. The commenter concurred that this command could be used, but recognized that some of the controls in effect during 2002 cannot be modeled with this command. ( Refer to technical specifics of this comment in the response to comment document.) Response: The EPA does not agree with the commenter that the non creditable pre 1990 FMVCP reductions should be calculated using the I/ M program and fuel properties in effect during the new baseline year of 2002. Including the I/ M program and fuel properties in effect in 2002 in the calculation of non creditable reductions would not accurately account for reductions that are the result of pre 1990 Federal motor vehicle control measures. The EPA believes that the methods provided in the final rule accurately identify the non creditable reductions from pre 1990 motor vehicle standards and provide appropriate credit for all post 1990 control measures. 12. Should EPA continue the policy of allowing substitution of controls from outside the nonattainment area within 100 kilometers for VOC and 200 kilometers for NOx? [ Section VI. I. 2. of June 2, 2003 proposed rule ( 68 FR 32833); no draft or final regulatory text.] a. Background The proposal noted that EPA currently has a policy that allows States to take credit for RFP for NOx and VOC controls that occur outside the nonattainment areas [" Guidance for Implementing the 1 Hour Ozone and Pre Existing PM10 NAAQS, December 29, 1997, 68 FR 32833]. Specifically, the guidance generally allows credit for VOC reductions occurring up to 100 km outside the area and for NOx reductions occurring up to 200 km outside the area ( Statewide where a regional NOx control strategy is being implemented). The policy indicates that credit may be taken only for the emissions reductions from measures not otherwise mandated by the CAA. As explained in the policy, EPA believes that this additional flexibility for crediting reductions outside nonattainment areas is consistent with the CAA. 16 requirement, not a requirement for specific programs or measures such as vehicle inspection and maintenance. Allowing this flexibility would continue to provide the same rate of progress in terms of reducing emissions." ( 61 FR 65758).

52 Under this approach, the geographic area for substitution of VOC emission reductions is 100 km from the nonattainment area and the geographic area for substitution of NOx reductions is 200 km from the nonattainment area with the possibility for additional expansion of the NOx substitution area as follows. Nitrogen oxides emissions reductions from anywhere within the State may be credited for those States that participate in a regional NOx control strategy such as the NOx SIP Call. All other States implementing a NOx substitution strategy for RFP would be restricted to a distance of 200 km from the nonattainment area, unless a substitution for a greater distance is accompanied by adequate technical justification. Substitutions are restricted to intrastate areas unless two or more States involved reach mutual agreement. There are some cases in the western portions of the United States where 100 km for VOC substitution or 200 km for NOx substitution from the nonattainment areas are not appropriate for RFP credit. In those cases, States should obtain approval from the appropriate Regional Office to verify credit and applicability prior to implementing such a substitution. The EPA notes that in all cases the distances in the policy provide only a general policy presumption that, if used, would need data resources in the record showing that reductions from sources in the specific locations in attainment areas benefit the nonattainment area. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F. 3d 575 5th Circuit, 2004. b. Summary of final rule We believe that States should continue to be able to rely on emissions reductions from outside the nonattainment area for credit toward their RFP obligations. However, we are reassessing the current policy in light of concerns and recommendations raised outside the rulemaking process by the EPA Office of Inspector General that indicated a potential for double counting of emissions reductions and problematic equity issues. 15 We responded to that report that we are considering the various components of the recommendations as we assess existing policies and guidance in parallel to the rulemaking for implementing the 8 hour ozone standard. 16 We fully expect that any revisions to the policy will continue to allow States to take credit toward their RFP obligation from emission reductions outside the 17 Last September, the EPA Office of Inspector General submitted a report ( outside the rulemaking process) outlining concerns and recommendations with respect to the potential for double counting of emissions reductions and problematic equity issues. U. S. EPA Office of the Inspector General. We responded to that report that we are considering the various components of the recommendations as we assess existing policies and guidance in parallel to the rulemaking for implementing the 8 hour ozone standard. [ Evaluation Report: EPA and States Not Making Sufficient Progress in Reducing Ozone Precursor Emissions In Some Major Metropolitan Areas. Report No. 2004 P 00033. September 29, 2004.] [ Memorandum from Jeffery R. Holmstead to J. Rick Beusse, " Response to the Office of the Inspector General ( OIG) Evaluation Report, EPA and States Not Making Sufficient Progress in Reducing Ozone Precursor Emissions in Some Major Metropolitan Areas, Report No. 2004 P 00033 ( December 29, 2004). March 24, 2005.]

53 nonattainment area, but will17 In doing so, States should ensure that the reductions meet the standard tests of creditability ( permanent, enforceable, surplus, and quantifiable) and are shown to be beneficial toward reducing ozone in the nonattainment area. c. Comments and responses Comment: Several commenters supported this feature of EPA's proposal regarding RFP because it allows the States flexibility to tailor control strategies to address the issues specific to a particular nonattainment area. The commenters supported codification ( 68 FR 32833, column 1) in the final rule of the December 29, 1997, guidance memo (" Guidance for Implementing the 1 Hour Ozone and Pre Existing PM10 NAAQS") that allows emissions reductions from outside the nonattainment area to be creditable toward RFP. One commenter agreed that States ought to be able to account for regional emissions in their attainment demonstrations. On the other hand, the commenter was concerned that the Agency might allow jurisdictions to " credit" emissions reductions from sources up to 100 km for VOC and 200 km for NOx toward 15 percent RFP plans, and this in turn could encourage jurisdictions in need of these tonnage reductions to regulate without a sound basis. The commenter contended that while ozone is known to be a " regional pollutant", EPA has failed to establish in this rulemaking any technical basis for allowing States to impose regulations on sources outside the nonattainment area boundaries without independent justification of the impact of such sources on an area's failure to attain the standard. 18The EPA notes that paragraph ( 1) of subsection 182( b) is entitled " Plan Provisions for Reasonable Further Progress" and that subparagraph ( B) of paragraph 182( c)( 2) is entitled " Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration," thereby making it clear that both the 15 percent plan requirement of section 182( b)( 1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 182( c)( 2) are specific varieties of RFP requirements.

54 Response: We developed our 1997 policy as a result of the modeling results relating to the NOx SIP Call ( see, for example, 63 FR 57355, October 27, 1998, and 69 FR 21604, April 21, 2004). These modeling analyses demonstrate that significant contribution to nonattainment resulted not only from source emissions within a nonattainment area but also from source emissions over a much broader area. Not only do these emissions from outside the nonattainment area affect air quality within the nonattainment area, in some cases it might be necessary to include and control emission sources located in the nearby areas in order to attain the standard. We believe it is appropriate to allow States to take credit for reductions from sources outside their nonattainment areas where data indicate that those emissions affect air quality in the nonattainment areas. We note that section 182( c)( 2)( C), which provides for the substitution of NOx controls for VOC, speaks in terms of reductions of ozone concentrations rather than strictly reductions in emissions. This provision led us to conclude that Congress' intent for the ROP requirement is to lower ozone concentrations within the nonattainment area. It is consistent with that intent that emissions reductions from outside the nonattainment area that will reduce ozone concentrations in the nonattainment area should be creditable in RFP demonstrations. We also believe that the CAA is clear that both the 15 percent plan requirement of section 182( b)( 1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 182( c)( 2) are specific varieties of RFP requirements. 18 Section 171( 1) of the CAA states that, for purposes of part D of title I, RFP " means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date." Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172( c)( 2), or the more specific RFP requirements of subpart 2 for classified ozone nonattainment areas ( the 15 percent plan requirement of section 182( b)( 1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 182( c)( 2)), the purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date. Emissions reductions strategies 19U. S. EPA Office of the Inspector General. Evaluation Report: EPA and States Not Making Sufficient Progress in Reducing Ozone Precursor Emissions In Some Major Metropolitan Areas. Report No. 2004 P 00033. September 29, 2004.

55 applied to sources outside the nonattainment area may have a beneficial effect on the nonattainment problem within the designated area. Since RFP/ ROP is progress towards attainment, specific, annual emissions reductions from geographic areas outside the nonattainment area boundaries that contribute to attainment in the nonattainment area would fall within the scope of " such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required . . . for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date." However, as noted above in the Background portion, we intend to reassess whether the policy should be revised in light of concerns brought to our attention outside the rulemaking process pertaining to its technical feasibility. 19 Comment: One commenter requested clarification that if the 100 km/ 200 km area extends into adjacent States that reductions in those States should also be creditable, especially with regard to the implementation of federal measures. Response: We intend to look into this issue further in the future as part of the overall reassessment of the 100km/ 200km credit issue. Comment: Another commenter expressed confusion by the provision to allow creditable reductions be made outside nonattainment areas. They asked if reductions made outside a nonattainment area actually bring that nonattainment area into compliance with the standard, then shouldn't those outside areas be designated nonattainment by definition? The commenter contended that this contradiction is unacceptable, and a fatal flaw of current designation efforts and this implementation proposal. Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the area in which creditable ROP/ RFP reductions are obtained must be part of the nonattainment area. Emissions are only one of many factors to determine if an area should be part of the nonattainment area built around a violating monitor. Once we determine that a monitor is recording a violation, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and include them in the designated nonattainment area. For guidance on determining the nonattainment boundary for the 8 hour ozone standard, we look to CAA section 107( d)( 4) that established the Consolidated 20Memorandum from John Seitz, " Boundary Guidance on Air Quality Designations for the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS or Standard)." March 28, 2000. Found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ozonedesignations/ guidance. htm.

21 Generally counties ( in the case of parts of New England, the township) were used as the basic jurisdictional unit for defining nonattainment area boundaries. But consideration of topographical/ geographical factors could lead to splitting counties ( 69 FR at 23861, April 30, 2004).

56 Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA) or Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) presumptive boundary for more polluted areas when we promulgated our designation actions in 1991 for the 1 hour ozone standard. We generally started with counties in the CMSA or MSA because that area, defined by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), generally shares economic, transportation, population and other linkages that are similar to air quality related factors that produce ozone pollution. The actual size of the nonattainment area may be larger or smaller than the CMSA or the MSA boundaries, or, than the single county with a violating monitor ( in the case of a single county not in any MSA/ CMSA area) and depends on a number of air quality related technical factors contained in our designation guidance. 20 After identifying such areas   MSAs/ CMSAs/ single counties   with violating monitors, we then determined which nearby jurisdictional units21 were contributing to the nearby violation even those not monitoring violations. We considered each of 11 applicable factors identified in our designation guidance in making our assessment of whether a jurisdictional unit was a nearby area contributing to the violation that should be included in the designated nonattainment area. These factors include emissions, traffic patterns, population density, and area growth. Only after consideration of all 11 factors did we add a jurisdictional unit to a nonattainment area. In sum, for purposes of designating an area, we are required to designate the area violating the standard and any " nearby" area that is contributing to the violation. We complied with that statutory obligation in the designation process. However, there may be emissions from areas that were not designated as part of the nonattainment area that contribute to violations of the standard. Our approach to allowing credit for reductions in these emissions is not inconsistent with the designation process. Comments on draft regulatory text 57 Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA state, either in the preamble to this rule or in the rule itself, that any VOC emissions reductions within 100 km and any NOx emissions reductions within 200 km of the nonattainment boundary, including reductions in adjacent States, are creditable for RFP plan purposes. They also suggested that EPA address voluntary reductions for RFP purposes to state that reductions from voluntary measures should be incorporated into the baseline emissions inventory calculation. Another commenter stated that EPA does not specify in § 51.910( a)( 4) that in areas where the 3 percent annual reduction is required, those reductions must be achieved within the statutorily defined baseline " area." ( CAA section 182( b)( 1)( B)). The commenter stated that we issued initial NOx substitution guidance in 1993 that required RFP reductions to be achieved from sources within the designated nonattainment area. The commenter noted that subsequently, we attempted to unlawfully allow RFP reductions to be obtained from sources within the modeling domain. The commenter advocated that we clarify that the CAA requires creditable reductions to be obtained only from sources within the designated nonattainment areas. Response: We believe that the policy does not need to be incorporated into a rule. Since areas must include record support for application of the policy in an area demonstrating that such reductions will have a positive impact on the specific nonattainment area, individual rulemaking in the context of an area's SIP must be conducted in any event to implement the policy. The EPA believes that any reductions that in fact result in improved air quality within the nonattainment area can be credited to RFP demonstrations. Voluntary emissions reductions that are used to satisfy RFP requirements   or any requirements under the CAA   must meet EPA's criteria for creditability of such reductions, including inclusion of the emissions reductions in the baseline. As explained elsewhere in response to another comment on the policy of allowing substitution of controls from outside the nonattainment area within 100 km for VOC and 200 km for NOx, EPA disagrees with the comment that the CAA limits the scope of creditable emissions reductions to only those reductions in emissions emanating from within the nonattainment area boundaries. Our full rationale is set forth in a previous response. We also address elsewhere the comment relating to allowance of RFP credit from emissions reductions outside the State in which the nonattainment area is located. 13. When must RFP emissions reductions be achieved? [ Section VI. I. of June 2, 2003 proposed rule ( several locations starting at 68 FR 32832); several locations including § 51.910( a)( 1) of the draft and final regulatory text.] a. Background 22With this rulemaking, this provision is codified as 40 CFR 51.908( d).

58 Section 51.910( a)( 1) of the draft regulatory text that was made available for public comment provided that for areas initially designated nonattainment for the 8 hour NAAQS, the initial 6 year period for RFP shall run from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2008. Section 182( c)( 2)( B), applicable to serious and above areas, requires that RFP be continued out to the attainment date. Therefore, § 51.910( a)( 2) of the draft regulatory text provided, " For each area classified as serious or higher under § 51.903, the State must submit no later than 3 years after the effective date of the area's nonattainment designation a SIP revision consistent with section 182( c)( 2)( B) of the CAA for each 3 year period following the initial 6 year period addressed under paragraph ( a)( 1)( ii)( B) of this section until the area's attainment date. For areas initially designated nonattainment for the 8 hour NAAQS the 3 year periods referenced in section 182( c)( 2)( B) of the Act shall begin January 1, 2009." In applying the requirement of section 182( c)( 2)( B), it is necessary to know the attainment date for the area. The attainment date is not necessarily the maximum allowed under part D of the CAA, but must be " as expeditious as practicable" but no later than the outermost date provided in the CAA ( e. g., 9 years after designation for a serious area). Thus, the State must theoretically have completed an attainment demonstration and RACM analysis ( discussed elsewhere in this preamble) to demonstrate that the attainment date selected is as expeditious as practicable. The Phase 1 rule, § 51.900( g) sets forth the following definition: " Attainment year ozone season shall mean the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date." Also, § 51.90822 ( What is the required time frame for obtaining emission reductions to ensure attainment by the attainment date?) provides: " For each nonattainment area, the State must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season." Thus, if the latest attainment date allowed by the CAA for a serious area designated in 2004 is June 15, 2013, the ( complete) ozone season preceding that date would occur in 2012. However, if all of the reductions necessary to achieve attainment are in place prior to that ozone season, then the most expeditious attainment date would in fact be just after the end of that ozone season in 2012 ( assuming the RACM analysis did not compel a more expeditious attainment year). Thus, in light of the Phase 1 rule, the latest possible attainment date for all areas will be just after the end of the ozone season in the year prior to the 23With the exception of areas with year round ozone seasons, in which case the latest attainment date may be earlier in the year of the outside attainment date identified in the statute.

24Note that 40 CFR 51.900( g) defines " Attainment year ozone season" as the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date.

59 outside attainment date identified in the statute for the area's classification. 23 Consistent with the manner in which ROP plans under the 1 hour ozone standard were developed, the RFP baseline for 2002 will have a typical summer day tons/ day basis. As such, the attainment year target will also be a typical summer day target. Thus, the target level of emissions must be met by the attainment date of the attainment year. 24 As noted above, section 182( c)( 2)( B) requires that RFP be continued out to the attainment date. Therefore Thus, ifto some extent, the area's last increment of progress ( out toRFP requirement may help determine the area's attainment date) would . In the example discussed above of a serious area, the first milestone year after 2008 by which an annual average of 3 percent emission reductions would have to be achieved over each 3 year period ( i. e., 9 percent over 3 years) would be 2011, with an additional annual average of 3 percent per year between the end of 2011 and the attainment year ( if the attainment year is beyond 2011). The maximum statutory attainment year under the discussion above would be 2013, but, for the reasons explained above concerning the date by which emissions reductions must be achieved, the actual maximum attainment year would generally be the year prior, viz., 2012. If for example this area needs an additional 7 percent emission reduction for attainment purposes beyond 2008, however, RFP would require implementation of the entire 7 percent no later than the end of 2011. Since that is the amount needed for attainment, the area would actually achieve attainment by 2011, and the attainment date would then have to be no later than 2011. If the area did not achieve this 7 percent reduction until the end of 2011, the RFP requirement in this case could not require the full 9 percent reduction. Thus, since RFP is only needed up to the attainment date, should the area achieve the 7% earlier in the year it would have achieved attainment and no further ROP would be required. Therefore, in this example RFP would not require more reductions than needed for attainment. Furthermore, the RFP requirement by itself would not force an attainment year earlier than 2011 for this case ( e. g., 2010   2 years after 2008), since the 7 percent reduction over 2 years is greater than an annual 60 average of 3 percent, which is beyond that required by the RFP requirement. 1 In summary, RFP reductions end at the attainment date, and as shown the RFP requirement would not result in emissions reductions greater than needed for attainment, then that final increment of progress still needs to be implemented by the area's attainment date. However, we do not believe that there will likely be a situation where RFP requirements will result in emission reductions that will be greater than the reductions needed for attainment. The reason is that the RFP requirement is based on reducing typical summer day emissions. The last increment of progress would be in the attainment year, and would be achieved for the ozone season prior to the attainment date. We do not consider partial years in the calculation of the RFP requirement ( thus, there would not be an " extra increment" between the beginning of the ozone season and the attainment date that would occur after the ozone season). The emission reductions needed for attainment must also be achieved prior to the ozone season prior to the attainment date; therefore the emission reductions needed by the attainment date would satisfy the last RFP increment out to the attainment date. An example of how this might play out appears in Appendix C of this preamble. b. Summary of final rule For each area classified as moderate or higher, the State's 15 percent VOC emission reduction plan must provide for the emissions reductions to be achieved by the end of the 6 year period after the baseline year. The 6 year period referenced in section 182( b)( 1) of the CAA shall begin January 1 of the year following the year used for the baseline emissions inventory. For areas initially designated nonattainment for the 8 hour NAAQS, the 6 year period runs from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2008. For each area classified as serious or higher, the State's RFP plan must provide a 3 percent annual emission reduction requirement averaged over every 3 year period after the initial 6 year period. For areas initially designated nonattainment for the 8 hour NAAQS, the first 3 year period shall run from January 1, 2009 and end December 31, 2011. The final increment of progress must be achieved no later than the attainment date for the area. An example of the recommended approach is shown in Table 1 for serious and above areas; assume the area has already completed its 15 percent VOC reduction under the 1 hour ozone standard. To summarize, for areas designated nonattainment for the 8 hour NAAQS with an effective date of June 15, 2004, the rule would establish the following: 61 ° The 6 year period in section 51.910( a)( 1)( i)( A) and ( ii)( C)( 1) would run from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2008. ° The first 3 year period in section 51.910( a)( 1)( i)( B) would run from January 1, 2009 and end December 31, 2011. ° The baseline emissions inventory in section 51.910( d) would be for calendar year 2002.. 62 Table 1 Reduction Requirements for Periods for Areas Classified as Serious and above with an approved 1 hour 15 percent Plan in the SIP ( assumes spring to fall ozone season)

RFP Requirement  As a Percentage of Baseline VOC and/ or NOx Emissions NOTE 2 Classification Row Time Period / Terminal Period NOTE 1 Serious Severe 15 Severe 17 Extreme 1 First 6 years after the Baseline Year ( Typical summer day, 2002 to December 31, 2008) 18 percent 18 percent 18 percent 18 percent 2 Next Full 3 year Period ( January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2011) 9 percent 9 percent 9 percent 9 percent 3 Next Full 3 year Period ( January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014) 3 percent in the 2012 attainment year 9 percent 9 percent 9 percent 4 Next Full 3 year Period ( January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017) 9 percent 9 percent 9 percent Table 1 Reduction Requirements for Periods for Areas Classified as Serious and above with an approved 1 hour 15 percent Plan in the SIP ( assumes spring to fall ozone season)

RFP Requirement  As a Percentage of Baseline VOC and/ or NOx Emissions NOTE 2 Classification Row Time Period / Terminal Period NOTE 1 Serious Severe 15 Severe 17 Extreme 63 5 Next Full 3 year Period ( January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019) 6 percent in 2018 attainment year 9 percent 9 percent 6 Next Full 3 year Period ( January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022) 3 percent in 2020 attainment year 9 percent 7 The period terminating in extreme area attainment date ( January 1, 2022 to attainment date at end of 2023) 6 percent in 2023 attainment year 64 NOTES:

1. Time periods in parentheses are for areas designated and classified effective June 15, 2004.

2. RFP credit allowed for NOx reductions using substitution under section 182( c)( 2)( C). 65 c. Comments and responses No comments were received on the proposal concerning the timing of emission reductions needed for RFP. 14. Banked emission reduction credits ( including shutdown credits) Can pre baseline emission reduction credits be used to satisfy the RFP requirement? [ No discussion in June 2, 2003 proposal; no draft or final regulatory text.] a. Background This topic was not discussed in the proposed rulemaking, but we believe that questions that have arisen on this topic bear some discussion here. The CAA provides the following definition in section 182( b)( 1)( D) regarding the 15 percent VOC RFP requirement: Baseline emissions. For purposes of subparagraph ( A), the term " baseline emissions" means the total amount of actual VOC or NOx emissions from all anthropogenic sources in the area during the calendar year of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, excluding . . . [ emphasis added.]

The April 1992 General Preamble provides: The adjusted base year inventory ( i. e., baseline emissions) must contain only actual emissions occurring in the base year, 1990, within the designated nonattainment area boundaries. The baseline emissions should not include pre enactment banked emission credits since they were not actual emissions during the calendar year of enactment [ 57 FR 13507; April 16, 1992; emphasis added].

and Pre enactment banked emissions reductions credits are not creditable toward the 15 percent progress requirement. However, for purposes of equity, EPA encourages States to allow sources to use such banked emissions credits for offsets and netting. When States use such banked credits for offsets and netting to the extent otherwise creditable under the Part D NSR regulations, these pre enactment emissions credits must be treated as growth. Consequently, this " growth" must be accounted for, as is the case with all other anticipated growth, in order to ensure that it does not interfere with the 15 percent rate of progress requirement ( which is " net" of growth). In addition, when such growth emissions are used as offsets, they must be applied in accordance with the offset ratio prescribed for the area of concern ( e. g., 1.3 to 1 for severe areas, etc.). All pre enactment banked credits must be included in the nonattainment area's attainment demonstration for ozone to 25Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans. Ozone/ Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 452/ R 92 005. October 1992.

2651 FR 233 " Emissions Trading Policy Statement; General Principles for Creation, Banking and Use of Emission Reduction Credits; Final Policy Statement and Technical Issues Document." December 4, 1986. This document has been replaced by Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, January 2001, available at http:// www. epa. gov/ region07/ programs/ artd/ air/ policy/ search. htm.

66 the extent that the State expects that such credits will be used for offsets or netting prior to attainment of the ambient standards. Credits used after that date will need to be consistent with the area's plan for maintenance of the ambient standard [ 57 FR 13508].

The EPA's 1992 guidance on calculating the 15 percent emission target25 contained the following: 4.3 Pre enactment Banked Emissions Reduction Credits. If the State has an emissions credit bank that meets the EPA's requirements under an earlier policy statement[ 26], the State is allowed to use its pre enactment banked emissions reduction credits to facilitate the location of new sources in nonattainment areas during the 1990 1996 period. However, because these reduction credits represent emissions that are not included in the 1990 base year inventory, any additional emissions that result from the use of banked credits must be treated as growth in order to ensure that the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirement is achieved. Also, it is important to note that the use of pre enactment banked emissions credits must be in accordance with the offset ratios prescribed in the CAA Amendments ( e. g., 1.3 to 1 in severe areas.)

The 1992 guidance document provides an example calculation of the above guidance. b. Interpretation for 8 hour ozone NAAQS The guidance provided above is still relevant for banked emission reduction credits in relation to the RFP requirement for the 8 hour ozone standard. However, because the rule for implementing the 8 hour ozone standard uses a 2002 baseline year, the above guidance should be read   for purposes of implementing the 8 hour ozone RFP requirement   by substituting " pre enactment banked emission credits" with " pre 2002 banked emission credits." A pre 2002 banked emission credit is one that was generated before January 1, 2002 and that is certified in a bank that EPA has approved for such purposes. For a discussion of the use of shutdown/ curtailment credits for offsets and netting, see section V. B. 1. a of this preamble. For a discussion of the use of emission reduction credits for offsets and netting, see section V. D. 5 of this preamble.


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30184-30186]
[FR Doc No: E9-14796]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60122; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change to Charge a $500 Monthly Fee to Recipients of the
NYSE Amex Order Imbalance Information Datafeed

June 17, 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 June 5, 2008, the NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III 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

    NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the ``Exchange''), formerly the
American Stock Exchange LLC, proposes to charge a $500 monthly fee to
recipients of the NYSE Amex Order Imbalance Information datafeed. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Amex 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. NYSE Amex 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
    NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the ``Exchange''), formerly the
American Stock Exchange LLC, proposes to charge a $500 monthly fee to
recipients of the NYSE Amex Order Imbalance Information datafeed.
    On April 9, 2009, NYSE Amex formally established its NYSE Amex
Order Imbalance Information datafeed service (the ``Implementation
Filing'').\3\ Subsequent to the Implementation Filing, NYSE Amex
amended NYSE Amex Equity Rules 15 and 123C to modify the reference
price at which the Exchange reports NYSE Amex Order Imbalance
Information and to clarify what is included or excluded from the NYSE
Amex Order Imbalance Information reports (the ``Reference Price
Filing'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59743 (April 9,
2009), 74 FR 17699 (April 16, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-11).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59816 (April 23,
2009), 74 FR 19614 (April 29, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As more fully described in the Implementation Filing and the
Reference Price Filing, NYSE Amex Order Imbalance Information provides
real-time order imbalances that accumulate prior to the opening of
trading on the Exchange and prior to the close of trading on the
Exchange. The Exchange provides this information for issues that are
likely to be of particular trading interest at the opening or closing.
    Currently, the Exchange provides this datafeed at no cost. The
instant filing is submitted to establish a $500 monthly fee for receipt
of the NYSE Amex Order Imbalance Information datafeed. This proposed
$500 monthly fee to recipients of the NYSE Amex Order Imbalance
Information datafeed applies whether the recipient receives the
datafeed directly from the Exchange or indirectly from an intermediary.
The fee entitles the datafeed recipient to make displays of that
information available to an unlimited number of subscribers for no
extra charge. The Exchange is not proposing to impose an end-user or
display service fee on those subscribers.
    The $500 monthly fee would allow vendors to redistribute NYSE Amex
Order Imbalance Information: (1) Without having to differentiate
between professional subscribers and nonprofessional subscribers; (2)
without having to account for the extent of access to data; (3) without
having to procure contracts with its subscribers for the benefit of the
Exchange; and (4) without having to report the number of its
subscribers.
    The Exchange submits that the fee enables the investment community
that has an interest in the receipt of order imbalance information to
contribute to the Exchange's operating costs in a manner that is
appropriate for this market data product.
    In setting the level of the NYSE Amex Order Imbalance Information
Product fee, the Exchange took into consideration several factors,
including:
    (1) The fees that other Exchanges are charging for similar services
\5\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ New York Stock Exchange LLC imposes an access fee of $500
per month for its order imbalance datafeed. Nasdaq OMX includes
order imbalance information in its Nasdaq TotalView datafeed. Nasdaq
OMX imposes end-user charges on both professional and
nonprofessional subscribers that receive TotalView, as well as an
array of monthly distribution charges that are significantly higher
than the charge that NYSE Amex is proposing in this proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Consultation with some of the entities that the Exchange
anticipates will be the most likely to take advantage of the proposed
service;
    (3) The contribution of market data revenues that the Exchange
believes is appropriate for entities that provide market data to large
numbers of investors, which are the entities most likely to take
advantage of the proposed service; and
    (4) The contribution that revenues accruing from the proposed fee
will make to meet the overall costs of the Exchange's operations.
    In short, the Exchange believes that the proposed NYSE Order
Imbalance Information fee would reflect an equitable allocation of its
overall costs to users of its facilities.
    The Exchange believes that the level of the fee is consistent with
the approach set forth in the approval order issued by the Commission
related to ArcaBook fees.\6\ In the ArcaBook Approval Order, the
Commission stated that ``when possible, reliance on competitive forces
is the most appropriate and effective means to assess whether the terms
for the distribution of non-core data are equitable, fair and
reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.'' \7\ It noted that if
significant competitive forces apply to a proposal, the Commission will
approve it unless a substantial countervailing basis exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (the
``ArcaBook Approval Order'').
    \7\ Id. at 74771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange submits that the NYSE Amex Order Imbalance Information
datafeed constitutes ``non-core data''; i.e., the Exchange does not
require a central processor to consolidate and distribute the product
to the public pursuant to joint-SRO plans. Rather, the Exchange
distributes this product voluntarily. Furthermore, both types of the
competitive forces that the Commission described in the ArcaBook
Approval Order are present: the Exchange has a compelling need to
attract order flow and the product competes with a number of
alternative products.
    The Exchange must compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its
share of trading volume. This requires the Exchange to act reasonably
in setting market data fees for non-core products such as the NYSE Amex
Order Imbalance Information datafeed. The Exchange hopes that NYSE Amex
Order Imbalance datafeed will enable vendors to distribute NYSE Amex
order imbalance information widely among investors, and thereby provide
a means for promoting the Exchange's visibility in the marketplace.
2. Statutory Basis
    The bases under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``1934
Act'') for the proposed rule change are the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) \8\ that an exchange have rules that provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities and the requirements under
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ that the rules of an exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-26. 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 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-NYSEAmex-2009-26 and should be submitted on or before
July 15, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14796 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


To whom it may concern,

In response to the potential loss of the pecan label for the systemic
insecticide, Temik (aldicarb) in pecan in Georgia, I offer this letter
on behalf of the Georgia Pecan Growers Association.  Temik is a highly
valuable tool for us in growing pecans.  It is the only systemic
material we have available to us that will control yellow pecan aphid,
black margined aphid, black pecan aphid, and pecan scorch mite.  One
application of Temik made at the appropriate time will control these
pests for the remainder of the year.

Use of this chemical saves our growers numerous insecticide sprays and
trips over the orchard.

In addition, Dr. Bill Goff (Auburn University)  and Dr. Lenny Wells
(University of Georgia) have data indicating that Temik helps to promote
tree vigor, improves yields,  helps to reduce alternate bearing, and
enhances the growth of young pecan trees.  The loss of Temik would be a
tremendous setback for the pecan industry of Georgia, which supplies
almost 30% of the pecans produced in the United States on an annual
basis.

Many Georgia pecan growers rely heavily on this material in the
management of their pecans.  In addition several growers have recently
invested in specially designed  implements to apply Temik to their
orchards.

I urge you on behalf of the pecan growers of Georgia, to please continue
the label for Temik (aldicarb) on pecan in Georgia.

					Sincerely,

					Hilton Segler, President

					Georgia Pecan Growers Association


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54686-54687]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC22-115-000.
    Applicants: MN8 Energy LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of MN8 Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220830-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/22.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
    Docket Numbers: EL22-85-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: ISO/RTO Sec.  206 Filing: Section 206 Filing to
Resolve Ambiguous Use of Designated Entity to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220826-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: EL22-86-000; QF03-76-004.
    Applicants: Boyd, Michael E., Californians for Renewable Energy,
Inc. (CARE), Michael E. Boyd, Doug Macmillan, William and Shona Leroy,
Carmela and Rigoberto Garnica, and Charles Adams v. California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC).
    Description: Californians for Renewable Energy Inc.(CARE), et al.
submit Petition for Enforcement Pursuant to Section 210(H) of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
    Filed Date: 8/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220826-5170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/22.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1186-013; ER10-1329-013; ER11-2731-006; ER11-
3097-014; ER12-421-006; ER13-738-010.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company, Heritage Garden Wind Farm I, LLC,
DTE Energy Trading, Inc., Heritage Stoney Corners Wind Farm I, LLC, St.
Paul Cogeneration, LLC, DTE Energy Supply, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of DTE Energy Supply, LLC,
et al.
    Filed Date: 8/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220830-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2437-018.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Supplement to July 29, 2022 Notice of Change in Status
of Arizona Public Service Company.
    Filed Date: 8/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220830-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1977-002.
    Applicants: Versant Power.
    Description: Compliance filing: Offer of Settlement (ER20-1977-) to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2747-000.
    Applicants: WSPP Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: List of Members Update 2022
to be effective 8/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220830-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2748-000.
    Applicants: SunZia Transmission LLC.
    Description: Petition for Waivers and Blanket Authorization under
Section 204 of SunZia Transmission LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220830-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2749-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Add Surety
Bonds as a Form of Financial Security to be effective 11/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2750-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Submission of Service Agreement
Nos. 108 and 109 to be effective 8/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2751-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Mid-Atlantic Interstate
Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: MAIT
submits Eight ECSAs, SA Nos. 6413-6420 to be effective 10/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2752-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Mid-Atlantic Interstate
Transmission, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: MAIT submits Eight ECSAs, SA
Nos. 6483-6488, 6490 and 6491 to be effective 10/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2753-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: RS No. 329--LGIA between
Colstrip Transmission Owners and GB Energy Park LLC to be effective 8/
22/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2754-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEF-SECI Reimbursement
Agreement RS No. 354 to be effective 10/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2755-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 6575-
Queue No. AD1-152; Cancellation of IISA, SA No. 6215 to be effective 8/
2/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2756-000.
    Applicants: Invenergy Nelson LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Filing of Assignment, Co-Tenancy,
and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 10/31/2022.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2757-000.
    Applicants: Invenergy Nelson Expansion LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Filing of Assignment, Co-Tenancy,
and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 10/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220831-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/22.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 31, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19247 Filed 9-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P