[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11179-11181]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4283]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66422; File No. SR-BATS-2012-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

 February 17, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 8, 2012, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to institute a fee change applicable to
securities listed on the Exchange. Changes to the Exchange's fees
pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On August 30, 2011, the Exchange received approval of rules
applicable to the qualification, listing and delisting of companies on
the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 14.13, entitled
``Company Listing Fees'' to: (i) Adopt specified pricing for certain
exchange traded products (``ETPs'') listed on the Exchange pursuant to
Rule 14.11; (ii) provide an exemption from annual listing fees for any
security listed on the Exchange that has a consolidated average daily
volume (``CADV'') equal to or greater than 2 million shares per day for
the prior two (2) calendar months; and (iii) apply all annual fees on
the anniversary date of a security's listing on the Exchange and make
other clarifying changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65225 (August 30,
2011), 76 FR 55148 (September 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listing Fees for ETPs
    The Exchange currently has in place specified fees for listing of
Tier I and Tier II securities on the Exchange, including both initial
and annual listing fees. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.13(b)
to adopt initial and annual fees for ETPs listed pursuant to Rule
14.11. The Exchange proposes to commence its listings business by
charging Initial Listing Fees of $10,000 for all ETPs. This initial
primary listing fee will include a $5,000 non-refundable application
fee. The Exchange also proposes to charge an annual fee of $35,000 for
ETPs, provided, however, that ETPs with CADV equal to or greater than 2
million shares per day for the prior two (2) calendar months will not
be assessed an annual fee, as described below. The Exchange also
proposes to re-number the remainder of Rule 14.13(b) following the
insertion of the proposed fees for ETPs.
Waiver of Annual Listing Fees for Certain Listed Securities
    In order to incentivize larger, more established companies and ETP
sponsors to list securities on the Exchange and to incentivize
companies that list on the Exchange and grow to be more established
companies to maintain their listings on the Exchange, the Exchange
proposes to waive the annual listing fee for any security that is
listed on the Exchange and has had a CADV equal to or greater than 2
million shares per day for the prior two (2) calendar months. This fee
waiver will apply equally to securities that transfer from another
listings market and become listed on the Exchange as well as those
securities already listed on the Exchange when the annual listing fee
becomes due (upon the anniversary of the security's listing, as
described below).
Billing of Annual Fees and Additional Clarifying Changes
    The Exchange proposes to modify its intended billing of annual
fees, which the Exchange originally intended to assess on a pro-rated
basis. The Exchange proposes to make clear that unless otherwise
specified, the Exchange will assess all annual fees set forth in Rule
14.13(b)(2) upon a security's initial listing and then on each
anniversary of a security's listing on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that billing each issuer on an annual basis from the date the
applicable security is first listed on the Exchange is a more
straightforward billing process than billing on a calendar year basis,
which requires pro-rating of annual listing fees in the initial billing
cycle.
    The Exchange also proposes to delete current paragraphs (F) and (G)
of Rule 14.13(b)(2), as such paragraphs are duplicative of existing
paragraphs (C) and (D) (which the Exchange proposes to re-number as (D)
and (E)).
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to correct and expand an internal
cross-reference set forth in Rule 14.13(b)(2)(E) (proposed to be re-
numbered as sub-paragraph (b)(2)(F)). As currently in effect, BATS Rule
14.13(b)(2)(E), states that the Exchange will not apply the standard
annual fee for a dually-listed security but will instead charge an
annual fee of $15,000. Although this was intended and described as
applicable to both Tier I and Tier II securities in the Exchange's rule
filing that proposed rules applicable to Exchange-listed securities,\6\
the rule text inaccurately limits this dual-listings fee to Tier I
securities. The Exchange proposes to expand the cross-reference to
include Tier II securities as well as the newly added provision setting
forth annual listing fees for ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64546 (May 25,
2011), 76 FR 31660 (June 1, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-018); see also id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\7\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among issuers, and it does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. As proposed, consistent
with pricing already in place for Tier I and Tier II securities, the
Exchange is proposing a clear-cut and simple pricing structure for ETPs
that is not variable based on the number of shares or other metrics.
The proposed fees applicable to ETPs are therefore equitable and non-
discriminatory because they will apply equally to all ETPs listed on
the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes its proposed pricing for
ETPs is reasonable, as the Exchange has not proposed additional fees
that issuers incur at other exchanges, including fees for issuance of
additional shares, name changes and other corporate actions. Finally,
the Exchange notes that its proposed pricing, while not necessarily
cheaper for all issuers at all other markets, is in many cases roughly
equivalent or less than issuers would pay at other exchanges. For
instance, derivative securities products and structured products listed
on the NYSE Arca are assessed fees between $5,000 and $45,000 initially
(depending on the type of product and number of shares) and between
$5,000 and $55,000 annually, compared to proposed Exchange fees for ETP
listings of $10,000 initially and $35,000 annually. Also, as noted
above, most other listings markets charge multiple other fees
applicable to additional shares issued by listed companies, corporate
actions and related activities of issuers, whereas the Exchange's
proposed fees do not include such additional fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable and non-
discriminatory to waive the annual fee for issuers that have
consolidated average daily volume (``CADV'') equal to or greater than 2
million shares per day for the prior two (2) calendar months. As a
general matter, listed companies that are better known and well-
established are frequently more actively traded, liquid securities. The
Exchange believes that the benefits to both the Exchange and other
Exchange constituents of attracting and retaining such companies to
list on the Exchange justifies the Exchange waiving annual listing fees
for

these issuers. As it relates to other issuers, the ability of the
Exchange to attract well-known, recognizable companies to list on the
Exchange will help the Exchange to establish its status and reputation
as a primary listing market. The Exchange's reputation as a primary
listing market, in turn, will positively impact all issuers that are
listed on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that additional
revenue generated from the Exchange's auction processes for actively
traded Exchange-listed securities will offset the cost of operating a
program for listed companies on the Exchange. Because issuers with
higher CADV are likely to generate additional revenue for the Exchange,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to waive annual listing fees for
such issuers. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that waiver
of annual listing fees to companies with certain CADV is a fair and
equitable allocation of fees to issuers.
    Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to
assess annual fees as of a security's initial listing date, rather than
pro-rating annual fees and billing on a calendar basis. In particular,
the Exchange believes that this annual billing will provide for more
certainty to issuers than a billing model that requires proration.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\10\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable to the
Exchange's Members and non-members, which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2012-010 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-BATS-2012-010. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2012-010 and should be
submitted on or before March 16, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-4283 Filed 2-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 51580]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-467-000]

CenterPoint Enery Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

September 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2009, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CEGT), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas
77002-5231, filed in Docket No. CP09-467-000 an application pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.208(b), 157.211(a), and 157.216(b) of the
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to
abandon and replace certain deteriorated pipeline facilities in Garland
and Hot Spring Counties, Arkansas, under CEGT's blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP82-384-000,\1\ as amended in Docket No. CP82-
384-001,\2\ all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20 FERC ] 62,408 (1982).
    \2\ 22 FERC ] 61,148 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEGT proposes to abandon 18.5 miles of 10-inch and 12-inch diameter
pipeline on its Line AM-22 \3\ in Hot Spring and Garland Counties;
replace approximately 7.5 miles of Line AM-22 with approximately 7.9
miles of 10-inch diameter pipeline, and abandon approximately 0.171
mile of 2-inch pipeline on Line AM-121.\4\ CEGT also proposes to
replace approximately 7.5 miles of Line AM-22 with approximately 7.9
miles of 10-inch diameter pipeline. CEGT also proposes to install
various taps and meter stations to continue natural gas service to its
existing customers currently served by the facilities that CEGT would
abandon and replace. CEGT estimates that the proposed replacement
facilities would cost $11,096,296 to construct and install.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Line AM-22 was constructed in 1920 under authorization
granted in Docket No. G-252 [3 FPC 910 (1943)].
    \4\ Line AM-121 was constructed in 1948 under authorization
granted in Docket No. G-10887 [16 FPC 1382 (1956)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michele Willis, Manager, Compliance & Regulatory, CenterPoint Energy
Gas Transmission Company, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana 71151,
or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24124 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 27, 2005

                     NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20150

_____________________________________________________________

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

Application of   Continental Airlines, Inc.  filed  4/8/2005 for:

XX  Temporary Waiver of Startup Condition:

Continental seeks an extension of the startup condition on its frequency
allocation to operate daily nonstop round-trip service between Houston,
Texas, and Cali, Colombia.  Continental states that it needs the
extension so that it can institute this service as soon as possible
following Cali airport’s completion of the additional B-737 jetbridge
required for Continental’s proposed service, but not later than August
15, 2005.  In support of its application, Continental acknowledges the
Department’s condition requiring service with the seven frequencies to
begin by June 23, 2005.  Continental, however, requests the August 15
extension, noting that it intends to institute service sooner if it can
resolve Cali airport impediments earlier than currently anticipated.  It
states that the airport construction necessary for Continental’s
service has been delayed beyond Continental’s control and that
Continental needs sufficient time to introduce its planned service and
to provide the public benefits in the Houston-Cali service.

Applicant rep.:  R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT analyst:
Linda Senese<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  April 27,  2005.

XX  Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the Air Transport Agreement
between the United States and Colombia.

(See Reverse Side)

2

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

	XX  Holder’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

Conditions:    If Continental does not begin service with all of the
allocated frequencies by August 25, 2005, each unused frequency will
automatically revert to the Department for reallocation.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

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

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 Continental states that it will be serving the route with B-737
equipment.

 While Continental states that it will begin service no later than
August 15, 2005, we will extend the startup date slightly beyond that
date to provide a reasonable opportunity for full introduction of the
new service proposed without the risk of losing frequencies.  Should
Continental need an extension beyond August 25, 2005, it will need to
request such extension formally.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38975]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15612]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9009-8]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 06/17/2013 Through 06/21/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130178, Draft EIS, USACE, FL, Port Everglades Harbor
Navigation Improvements, Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2013, Contact:
Terri Jordan-Sellers<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130179, Draft EIS, BLM, WY, Buffalo Field Office Planning
Area Resource Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/28/2013,
Contact: Thomas Bills<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130180, Draft EIS, BLM, WAPA, 00, TransWest Express
Transmission Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/25/2013, Contact: Sharon
Knowlton<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management and
the U.S. Department of Energy's Western Area Power Administration are
joint lead agencies for the above project.
EIS No. 20130181, Final EIS, USAF, AK, Modernization and Enhancement of
Ranges, Airspace and Training Areas in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range
Complex in Alaska, Review Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact: Tania Bryan
907-552-2341.
EIS No. 20130182, Draft EIS, EPA, LA, Designation of the Atchafalaya
River Bar Channel Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site West, Pursuant
to Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, Comment Period Ends: 08/12/2013, Contact: Jessica Franks
214-665-8335.
EIS No. 20130183, Final Supplement, NRC, NY, Generic--License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Review Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact:
Lois James<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130184, Draft Supplement, FHWA, AK, Gravina Access Project,
Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2013, Contact: Kris Riesenberg<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130185, Draft Supplement, Caltrans, CA, San Diego Freeway (I-
405) Improvement Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/12/2013, Contact:
Smita Deshpande<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 25, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-15612 Filed 6-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71057-71061]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28293]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0353; FRL-9919-96-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for
Great Falls

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Montana. On July 13, 2011, the Governor of Montana's designee
submitted to EPA a second 10-year maintenance plan for the Great Falls
area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS
for a second 10-year period beyond the original redesignation. EPA is
also proposing approval of an alternative monitoring strategy for the
Great Falls CO maintenance area, which was submitted by the Governor's
designee on June 22, 2012.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0353, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).

     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mail
Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0353. 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 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 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, 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. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region
8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303)
312-7104<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials ADT mean or refer to Average Daily Traffic.
    (iii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.
    (iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (v) The initials LMP mean or refer to Limited Maintenance Plan.
    (vi) The initials MDEQ mean or refer to Montana Department of
Environmental Quality.
    (vii) The initials MVEB mean or refer to Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budget.
    (viii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
    (ix) The initials ppm mean or refer to parts per million.
    (x) The initials RTP mean or refer to Regional Transportation Plan.
    (xi) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (xii) The initials TIP mean or refer to Transportation Improvement
Plan.
    (xiii) The words Montana and State mean or refer to the State of
Montana.

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and
page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. Great Falls CO Maintenance Plan

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the Great Falls
area was designated as nonattainment and classified as a ``not
classified'' CO area. This was because the area had been designated as
nonattainment before November 15, 1990, but had not violated the CO
NAAQS in 1988 and 1989 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On February 9,
2001, the Governor of Montana submitted to us a request to redesignate
the Great Falls CO nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS.
Along with this request, the Governor submitted a CAA section 175A(a)
maintenance plan which demonstrated that the area would maintain the CO
NAAQS for the first 10 years following our approval of the
redesignation request. We approved the State's redesignation request
and 10-year maintenance plan on May 9, 2002 (67 FR 31143).
    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance
plan to EPA,

covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-year maintenance
plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS during this
second 10-year period. To fulfill this requirement of the CAA, the
Governor of Montana's designee submitted the second 10-year update of
the Great Falls CO maintenance plan (hereafter; ``revised Great Falls
Maintenance Plan'') to us on July 13, 2011. With this action, we are
proposing approval of the revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended
through 2012. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS--9.0 parts per million (ppm)--is attained when
such value is not exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1).
The Great Falls area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1988 to the
present. In October 1995, EPA issued guidance that provided
nonclassifiable CO nonattainment areas the option of using a less
rigorous ``limited maintenance plan'' (LMP) option to demonstrate
continued attainment and maintenance of the CO NAAQS.\2\ According to
this guidance, areas that can demonstrate design values (2nd highest
max) at or below 7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance levels of the 8-hour CO
NAAQS) for eight consecutive quarters qualify to use an LMP. The area
qualified for and used EPA's LMP option for the first 10-year Great
Falls CO maintenance plan (67 FR 31143, May 9, 2002). For the revised
Great Falls Maintenance Plan the State again used the LMP option to
demonstrate continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Great Falls
area. We have determined that the Great Falls area continues to qualify
for the LMP option because the maximum design value for the most recent
eight consecutive quarters with certified data at the time the State
adopted the plan (years 2008 and 2009) was 1.6 ppm.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph W. Paisie,
Group Leader, EPA Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air
Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995.
    \3\ See Table 2 below. Additionally, according to the LMP
guidance, an area using the LMP option must continue to have a
design value ``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA
action on the redesignation.'' Table 2, below, demonstrates that the
area meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy

    Along with the revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan, the State
submitted a CO maintenance plan for the Billings, Montana maintenance
area, and an alternative strategy for monitoring continued attainment
of the CO NAAQS in all of the State's CO maintenance areas on July 13,
2011.\4\ The State submitted the alternative monitoring strategy to
conserve resources by discontinuing the gaseous CO ambient monitors in
both the Billings and Great Falls CO maintenance areas. In place of the
gaseous ambient monitors, the State's alternative method relies on
rolling 3-year Average Daily Traffic (ADT) vehicle counts collected
from permanent automatic traffic recorders in each maintenance area. We
commented on the State's ``Alternative Monitoring Strategy,'' and the
State submitted to us a revised version of the strategy which
incorporated our comments on June 22, 2012. The State's June 22, 2012
Alternative Monitoring Strategy replaced the version submitted on July
13, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In addition to Great Falls and Billings, the Missoula, MT CO
maintenance area was included in the July 13, 2011 Alternative
Monitoring Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation of Montana's Alternative Monitoring Strategy in
Great Falls

    Since 2002, no Great Falls CO monitor has registered a design value
greater than 2.8 ppm, which is below one-third of the NAAQS.\5\ Citing
these consistently low monitor values, and expressing a desire to
conserve monitoring resources, the State has requested to discontinue
CO monitoring in Great Falls and instead use an alternative strategy
for monitoring maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Table 2 below. Design values were derived from the EPA
AirData (http://www.epa.gov/ airdata/) Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's Alternative Monitoring Strategy utilizes ADT vehicle
counts collected from permanent automatic traffic recorders in the
Great Falls CO maintenance area to determine average monthly traffic
during the traditional high CO concentration season of November through
February. The State will compare the latest rolling 3-years of monthly
ADT volumes to the 2008-2010 baseline ADT volumes (see Table 1) that
correlate to the low CO monitored values during that period (see Table
2). Because mobile sources are the biggest driver of CO pollution, the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) reasoned that any
significant increase in CO emissions would have to be accompanied by a
significant increase in ADT.\6\ EPA agrees with the State's reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Carbon Monoxide,'' 76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011.

            Table 1--Traffic Volumes for Great Falls, Montana
              [Rolling 2008-2010 ADT: November to February]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Great Falls
                       Month-Year                            (#A-033)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2008............................................          34,123
February 2008...........................................          36,855
November 2008...........................................          35,675
December 2008...........................................          33,584
January 2009............................................          33,820
February 2009...........................................          36,102
November 2009...........................................          37,110
December 2009...........................................          34,742
January 2010............................................          34,371
February 2010...........................................          36,576
November 2010...........................................          34,164
December 2010...........................................          34,691
Average.................................................          35,151
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Table 2--8-Hour CO Design Values for Great Falls, Montana
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Design value (ppm) \7\                        Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.8.....................................................            2002
2.7.....................................................            2003
2.4.....................................................            2004
2.......................................................            2005
1.7.....................................................            2006
1.5.....................................................            2007
1.5.....................................................            2008
1.6.....................................................            2009
1.9.....................................................            2010
0.9.....................................................            2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% higher than the average
value of 35,151 from the 2008-2010 baseline period, the State will
reestablish CO ambient monitoring in Great Falls the following high
season (November-February). If the CO design value in that season has
not increased from the baseline mean by an equal or greater rate at
which ADT has increased, and the monitor values remain at or below 50%
of the CO NAAQS (2nd max concentration <=4.5 ppm), the monitor may
again be removed and the ADT counts will continue to be relied upon to
determine compliance with the NAAQS. This process will be repeated each
time the rolling 3-year ADT increases by a factor of 25% (e.g. 50%,
75%) above the baseline 2008-2010 period, and the same analysis will be
conducted to determine if the monitors can again be removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Design values were derived from the EPA AirData (http://www.epa.gov/airdata/) Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of requests to discontinue ambient
monitors ``on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not
compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS and if
the requirements of appendix D to 40 CFR

part 58, if any, continue to be met.'' EPA finds that the Alternative
Monitoring Strategy meets the criteria of 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the Great
Falls CO maintenance area. Given the long history of low CO
concentrations in the Great Falls area, and the adequacy of the
Alternative Monitoring Strategy at ensuring continued attainment of the
CO NAAQS, EPA finds it appropriate to approve the State's request to
discontinue the Great Falls monitor and use the Alternative Monitoring
Strategy in its place.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Great Falls Second 10-Year CO Maintenance
Plan

    The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Emission
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification
of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity
Determinations. Below, we describe our evaluation of each of these
elements as it pertains to the revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan contains an emissions
inventory for the base year 2009. The emission inventory is a list, by
source, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the Great Falls
CO maintenance area on a typical winter day in 2009.\8\ The mobile
sources data in the emission inventory in the July 13, 2011 submittal
were developed using emissions modeling methods that EPA did not
consider up-to-date. After consultation with EPA, the State then
provided EPA with technical information to clarify and supplement the
emissions inventory from the July 13, 2011 submittal.\9\ This
supplemental technical information utilized EPA-recommended mobile
sources emissions modeling methods (MOVES2010b).\10\ The Great Falls
LMP and supplementary technical information contain detailed emission
inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance
and is acceptable to EPA.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on
winter weekdays.
    \9\ The supplemental technical information was sent to EPA on
July 23, 2014, and is available in the docket for this action.
    \10\ Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model; version
2010b.
    \11\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    We consider the maintenance demonstration requirement to be
satisfied for areas that qualify for and use the LMP option. As
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO NAAQS). EPA maintains
that if an area begins the maintenance period with a design value no
greater than 7.65 ppm, the applicability of prevention of significant
deterioration requirements, the control measures already in the SIP,
and federal measures should provide adequate assurance of maintenance
over the 10-year maintenance period. Therefore, EPA does not require
areas using the LMP option to project emissions over the maintenance
period. Because CO design values in the Great Falls area are
consistently well below the LMP threshold (See Table 2), the State has
adequately demonstrated that the Great Falls area will maintain the CO
NAAQS into the future.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan, the State commits to
``continue to monitor CO using an instrumental method or a functionally
equivalent monitoring methodology as approved by EPA.'' As noted, EPA
is proposing to approve the State's Alternative Monitoring Strategy for
the Great Falls CO maintenance area as part of this action. Based on
final approval of the Alternative Monitoring Strategy, we will have
concluded that the strategy is adequate to verify continued attainment
of the CO NAAQS in Great Falls.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation of an area. To meet this requirement,
the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a
schedule for the development and implementation of such measures.
    The Great Falls Maintenance Plan stated in section <IP_ADDRESS> that
the State will use an exceedance of the CO NAAQS as the trigger for
adopting specific contingency measures for the Great Falls area. As
noted, the Alternative Monitoring Strategy requires reinstitution of a
CO monitor in Great Falls if traffic levels increase from the 2008-2010
baseline by a factor of 25%. Therefore, EPA finds that CO emissions in
Great Falls are very unlikely to increase to the point of an exceedance
without that exceedance being observed by a gaseous monitor.
    The State indicates that notification of an exceedance to EPA and
to the local governments in the Great Falls area will occur within 60
days. Upon notification of a CO NAAQS exceedance, MDEQ and Cascade
City/County Health Department (CCCHD) will recommend an appropriate
contingency measure or measures that would be necessary to avoid a
violation of the CO NAAQS standard. The necessary contingency
measure(s) will then be proposed for local adoption. Finalization of
the necessary contingency measures for local adoption will be completed
within three months of the exceedance notification. Full implementation
of the locally adopted contingency measure(s) will be achieved within
one year after the recording of a CO NAAQS violation.
    The potential contingency measures, identified in section
<IP_ADDRESS>.C of the Great Falls Maintenance Plan, include implementation
of a mandatory oxygenated fuels program with local regulations in the
Great Falls or Cascade County area for the winter months of November,
December, and January, and establishing an episodic woodburning
curtailment program. A more complete description of the triggering
mechanism and these contingency measures can be found in section
<IP_ADDRESS> of the Great Falls Maintenance Plan.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the State's
maintenance plan for Great Falls are sufficient and meet the
requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(B)). EPA's conformity
rule provisions in 40 CFR part 93, Subpart A require that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they demonstrate conformity. EPA's conformity rule provisions include
requirements for a demonstration that emissions from the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB)
contained in the SIP revision (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The MVEB is
defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the
attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the
NAAQS

in the nonattainment or maintenance area.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA's transportation conformity requirements and policy on
MVEBs are found in the preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196) and in the
sections of 40 CFR part 93 referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the LMP policy, emissions budgets are treated as essentially
not constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While EPA's
LMP policy does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity,
it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity without submitting
a MVEB. This is because it is unreasonable to expect that an LMP area
will experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the
CO NAAQS would result.\13\ Therefore, for the Great Falls CO
maintenance area, all actions that require conformity determinations
for CO under our conformity rule provisions are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test''
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Limited Maintenance Plan Guidance at 4. October 6, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations are still required for
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects must still demonstrate that
they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and must meet the
criteria for consultation and Transportation Control Measure
implementation in the conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 93.112 and 40
CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, projects in LMP areas will
still be required to meet the applicable criteria for CO hot spot
analyses to satisfy ``project level'' conformity determinations (40 CFR
93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must also incorporate the latest
planning assumptions and models available (40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR
93.111 respectively).
    In view of the CO LMP policy, the effect of this proposed approval
will be to affirm our adequacy finding such that no regional emissions
analyses for future transportation CO conformity determinations are
required for the CO LMP period and beyond (as per EPA's CO LMP policy
and 40 CFR 93.109(e)).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the revised Great Falls Maintenance
Plan submitted on July 13, 2011. This maintenance plan meets the
applicable CAA requirements and EPA has determined it is sufficient to
provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the second
10-year maintenance period out to 2022.
    EPA is also proposing to approve the State's Alternative Monitoring
Strategy for the Great Falls CO maintenance area. We do not propose to
approve application of the Alternative Monitoring Strategy in other
areas of Montana with this action, as the Alternative Monitoring
Strategy must be considered on a case-by-case basis specific to the
circumstances of each particular CO maintenance area rather than
broadly.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: November 10, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2014-28293 Filed 11-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P