[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30809-30812]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13858]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0014; FRL-9964-33-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Recovery Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky through its Energy and
Environment Cabinet (EEC) on November 10, 2016, for the Louisville
Metro Air Pollution Control District (District). This SIP revision
seeks to remove Stage II vapor control requirements for new and
upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities and allow for the
decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment in Jefferson County,
Kentucky. EPA has preliminarily determined that Kentucky's November 10,
2016, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0014 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can also
be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for Federal Stage II Requirements

    Stage I vapor recovery is a type of emission control system that
captures gasoline vapors that are released when gasoline is delivered
to a storage tank. The vapors are returned to the tank truck as the
storage tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released to the
ambient air. Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) are
two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from
vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II systems are specifically
installed at gasoline dispensing facilities and capture the refueling
fuel vapors at the gasoline pump nozzle. The system carries the vapors
back to the underground storage tank at the gasoline dispensing
facility to prevent the vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. ORVR
systems are carbon canisters installed directly on automobiles to
capture the fuel vapors evacuated from the gasoline tank before they
reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors captured in the carbon canisters are
then combusted in the engine when the automobile is in operation.
    Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, each state was required to
submit a SIP revision to implement Stage II for all ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, primarily
for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC)--a precursor to
ozone formation.\1\ However, section 202(a)(6) of the CAA states that
the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements for moderate ozone
nonattainment areas shall not apply after the promulgation of ORVR
standards.\2\ ORVR standards were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994.
See 59 FR 16262 and 40 CFR parts 86, 88, and 600. As a result, the CAA
no longer requires moderate areas to impose Stage II controls under
section 182(b)(3), and such areas were able to submit SIP revisions, in
compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA, to remove Stage II
requirements from their SIPs. EPA's policy memoranda related to ORVR,
dated March 9, 1993, and June 23, 1993, provide further guidance on
removing Stage II requirements from certain areas. The policy
memorandum dated March 9, 1993, states that ``[w]hen onboard rules are
promulgated, a State may withdraw its Stage II rules for moderate areas
from the SIP (or from consideration as a SIP revision) consistent with
its obligations under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as
withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable requirement of
the Act.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 182(b)(3) states that each State in which all or
part of an ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate or above
shall, with respect to that area, submit a SIP revision requiring
owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and
operate vapor recovery equipment at their facilities. Specifically,
the CAA specifies that the Stage II requirements must apply to any
facility that dispenses more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per
month or, in the case of an independent small business marketer
(ISBM), as defined in section 324 of the CAA, any facility that
dispenses more than 50,000 gallons of gasoline per month.
Additionally, the CAA specifies the deadlines by which certain
facilities must comply with the Stage II requirements. For
facilities that are not owned or operated by an ISBM, these
deadlines, calculated from the time of State adoption of the Stage
II requirements, are: (1) 6 months for facilities for which
construction began after November 15, 1990, (2) 1 year for
facilities that dispense greater than 100,000 gallons of gasoline
per month, and (3) by November 15, 1994, for all other facilities.
For ISBMs, section 324(a) of the CAA provides the following three-
year phase-in period: (1) 33 percent of the facilities owned by an
ISBM by the end of the first year after the regulations take effect;
(2) 66 percent of such facilities by the end of the second year; and
(3) 100 percent of such facilities after the third year.
    \2\ ORVR is a system employed on gasoline-powered highway motor
vehicles to capture gasoline vapors displaced from a vehicle fuel
tank during refueling events. These systems are required under
section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, and implementation of these
requirements began in the 1998 model year. Currently, they are used
on all gasoline-powered passenger cars, light trucks and complete
heavy trucks of less than 14,000 pounds GVWR. ORVR systems typically
employ a liquid file neck seal to block vapor escape to the
atmosphere and otherwise share many components with the vehicles'
evaporative emission control system including the onboard diagnostic
system sensors.
    \3\ Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air Directors,
Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II Requirements in
Moderate Areas (March 9, 1993), available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19930309_seitz_onboard_impact_stage2_.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 202(a)(6) also provides discretionary authority to the
EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section 182(b)(3)
Stage II requirement for serious, severe, and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas after the Administrator determines that ORVR is in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. On May 16, 2012, in
a rulemaking entitled ``Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard
Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,'' EPA determined that
ORVR technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet
for

purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions. See 77 FR
28772. By that action, EPA waived the requirement for states to
implement Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at gasoline
dispensing facilities in nonattainment areas classified as serious and
above for the ozone NAAQS. Effective May 16, 2012, states implementing
mandatory Stage II programs under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA were
allowed to submit SIP revisions to remove this program. See 40 CFR
51.126(b).\4\ On April 7, 2012, EPA released the guidance entitled
``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures'' for
states to consider in preparing their SIP revisions to remove existing
Stage II programs from state implementation plans.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, EPA found, pursuant to CAA section
202(a)(6), that ORVR systems are in widespread use in the motor
vehicle fleet and waived the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor
recovery requirement for serious and higher ozone nonattainment
areas on May 16, 2012. Thus, in its implementation rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, EPA removed the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement
from the list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o). See
80 FR 12264 for additional information.
    \5\ This guidance document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Kentucky's Stage II Requirements for Jefferson County

    On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified Jefferson County
and portions for Bullitt and Oldham Counties in Kentucky (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area'' or
``Area'') as part of the five-county area in and around the Louisville,
KY-IN, area as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.\6\ See 56 FR 56694, 56765. As mentioned above, the ``moderate''
classification triggered various statutory requirements for this Area,
including the requirement pursuant to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA for
the Area to require all owners and operators of gasoline dispensing
systems to install and operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery of
emissions from the fueling of motor vehicles known as ``Stage II.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The other counties in this nonattainment area were Clark and
Floyd Counties in Indiana. See 56 FR 56755.
    \7\ As discussed above, Stage II is a system designed to capture
displaced vapors that emerge from inside a vehicle's fuel tank when
gasoline is dispensed into the tank. There are two basic types of
Stage II systems, the balance type and the vacuum assist type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 4, 1993, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, on behalf of
Jefferson County, submitted a SIP revision to address the Stage II
requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. EPA
approved that SIP revision, containing Jefferson County Regulation
6.40, Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles
(Stage II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems), in a notice published on
March 6, 1996. See 61 FR 8873. Louisville's Stage II rule, as currently
incorporated into the SIP, requires that Stage II systems be tested and
certified to meet a 95 percent emission reduction efficiency by using a
system approved by the California Air Resources Board. The rule
requires sources to verify proper installation and function of Stage II
equipment through use of a liquid blockage test and a leak test prior
to system operation and every five years or upon major modification of
a facility (i.e., 75 percent or more equipment change). Louisville also
established an inspection program consistent with that described in
EPA's Stage II guidance and has established procedures for enforcing
violations of the Stage II requirements.
    On March 30, 2001, Kentucky submitted to EPA a request to
redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area to attainment
for the 1-hour ozone standard and an associated maintenance plan. The
maintenance plan, as required under section 175A of the CAA, showed
that nitrogen oxides and VOC emissions in the Area would remain below
the 1999 ``attainment year'' levels through the greater than ten-year
period from 1999-2012. In making these projections, Kentucky factored
in the emissions benefit of the Area's Stage II program, thereby
maintaining this program as an active part of its 1-hour ozone SIP. The
redesignation request and maintenance plan were approved by EPA,
effective November 23, 2001. See 66 FR 53665.
    Subsequently, Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham counties in Kentucky
(or portions thereof) were designated nonattainment as a part of a
larger bi-state nonattainment area which included Kentucky and Indiana
counties in and around the Louisville Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.\8\ On July 5, 2007, the Area (i.e., the Kentucky portion of
the bi-state Louisville Area) was redesignated to attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 72 FR 36601.\9\ The Lousiville Area is
attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ No counties in and around the Louisville Area were
designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    \9\ A technical amendment for the approval of the redesignation
request and maintenance plan was subsequently published on August
24, 2007. See 72 FR 48558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of the Commonwealth's Submittal

    On November 10, 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a
revision for the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP to EPA
seeking modifications of the Stage II requirements in the Kentucky
portion of the Louisville Area. Specifically, it seeks the removal of
Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance for Gasoline
Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and Control
Systems) from the Kentucky SIP. These modifications would remove Stage
II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing
facilities in the Louisville Area and allow for the decommissioning of
existing Stage II equipment.
    EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky's request is whether this requested action
complies with section 110(l) of the CAA.\10\ Section 110(l) requires
that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on
a case-by-case basis, considering the circumstances of each SIP
revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in
effect, including those that have been promulgated, but for which the
EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on
any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies
depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed
SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP
revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In addition to a 110(l) noninterference demonstration, CAA
section 193 is a general savings clause that can prohibit removing a
control measure entirely if it was adopted in a nonattainment area
by order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the 1990
CAA amendments. Because Kentucky's Stage II rule was not included in
the SIP before the 1990 CAA amendments, section 193 of the CAA does
not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its November 10, 2016, SIP revision, Kentucky used EPA's
guidance entitled ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing
Comparable Measures'' to conduct a series of calculations to determine
the potential impact on air quality of removing the Stage II

program.\11\ The 110(l) noninterference demonstration for the Kentucky
portion of the Louisville Area focused on VOC emissions because, as
mentioned above, Stage II requirements affect VOC emissions and because
VOC emissions are a precursor for ozone formation. The results of
Kentucky's analysis are provided in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, EPA-457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-stage-two-vapor-recovery-rule-and-guidance. This guidance document notes that ``the potential emission
control losses from removing Stage II VRS are transitional and
relatively small. ORVR-equipped vehicles will continue to phase in
to the fleet over the coming years and will exceed 80 percent of all
highway gasoline vehicles and 85 percent of all gasoline dispensed
during 2015. As the number of these ORVR-equipped vehicles increase,
the control attributed to Stage II VRS will decrease even further,
and the potential foregone Stage II VOC emission reductions are
generally expected to be no more than one percent of the VOC
inventory in the area.''

   Table 1--VOC Emissions Difference Between Stage II VRS in Place and
                                 Removed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          VOC  emissions
                          Year                            (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013...................................................             5.11
2014...................................................             3.10
2015...................................................             1.41
2016...................................................             0.06
2017...................................................            -1.21
2018...................................................            -2.24
2019...................................................            -3.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows that the removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems
in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area starting in 2017 would
have resulted and will result in a VOC emission decrease. If instead
Stage II requirements are kept in place, VOC emissions will decrease by
less, and it will be less beneficial to air quality in the Kentucky
portion of the Louisville Area to keep Stage II systems in
operation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The emissions-reduction disbenefit associated with
continued implementation of Stage II requirements is due to the
incompatibility of some Stage II and ORVR systems. Compatibility
problems can result in an increase in emissions from the underground
storage tank (UST) vent pipe and other system fugitive emissions
related to the refueling of ORVR vehicles with some types of vacuum
assist-type Stage II systems. This occurs during refueling an ORVR
vehicle when the vacuum assist system draws fresh air into the UST
rather than an air vapor mixture from the vehicle fuel tank. Vapor
flow from the vehicle fuel tank is blocked by the liquid seal in the
fill pipe which forms at a level deeper in the fill pipe than can be
reached by the end of the nozzle spout. The fresh air drawn into the
UST enhances gasoline evaporation in the UST which increases
pressure in the UST. Unless it is lost as a fugitive emission, any
tank pressure in excess of the rating of the pressure/vacuum valve
is vented to the atmosphere over the course of a day. See EPA,
Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, EPA-
457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-stage-two-vapor-recovery-rule-and-guidance.
Thus, as ORVR technology is phased in, the amount of emission
control that is gained through Stage II systems decreases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The affected sources covered by the Kentucky portion of the
Louisville Area portion of Kentucky's Stage II vapor recovery
requirements are sources of VOC. Other criteria pollutants (carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and
lead) are not emitted by gasoline dispensing facilities and will not be
affected by the removal of Stage II controls.
    The proposed revisions to Jefferson County Regulation 6.40,
Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage
II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems), include that gasoline
dispensing facilities located in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville
Area shall decommission and remove the systems no later than December
31, 2018. Kentucky noted in its submission that the decommissioning
procedures in the revised version of Jefferson County Regulation 6.40,
Standards of Performance for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage
II Vapor Recovery and Control Systems, follow Petroleum Equipment
Institute (PEI) guidance, ``Recommended Practices for Installation and
Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Refueling Sites,'' PEI/
RP300-09.
    EPA is proposing to determine that Kentucky's technical analysis is
consistent with EPA's guidance on removing Stage II requirements from a
SIP, including as it relates to the decommissioning and phasing out of
the Stage II requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville
Area. EPA is also making the preliminary determination that Kentucky's
SIP revision is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations
related to removal of Stage II requirements from the SIP, and that
these changes will not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA,
and therefore satisfy section 110(l).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance
for Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and
Control Systems), effective May 18, 2016. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's November
10, 2016, SIP revision that changes the Louisville Area's Stage II
rule, Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards of Performance for
Gasoline Transfer to Motor Vehicles (Stage II Vapor Recovery and
Control Systems), to allow for the removal of the Stage II requirement
and the orderly decommissioning of Stage II equipment. EPA is proposing
this approval because the Agency has made the preliminary determination
that the Commonwealth of Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP revision
related to the Louisville Area's Stage II rule is consistent with the
CAA and with EPA's regulations and guidance.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 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
proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 15, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-13858 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 70918-70921]
[DOCID:fr13de07-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56924; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Relating to the Definition of and
Listing Standards for Equity-Linked Notes under NYSE Arca Equities
Rules 5.1(b)(14) and 5.2(j)(2)

December 7, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on September 25, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange''), through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described in
Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange.
On October 23, 2007, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. On December 5, 2007, the Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, from interested persons, and is granting accelerated
approval to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
Equities, proposes to amend its rules governing NYSE Arca, LLC (also
referred to as the ``NYSE Arca Marketplace''), which is the equities
trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities. The Exchange is proposing to
amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.1(b)(14), the Exchange's definition of
Equity-Linked Notes (``ELNs''), and 5.2(j)(2), the Exchange's listing
standards for ELNs, to provide for greater flexibility in the listing
criteria for ELNs.
    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, 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 III below. The NYSE Arca has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.1(b)(14),
the Exchange's definition of ELNs, and 5.2(j)(2), the Exchange's
listing standards for ELNs, to provide for greater flexibility in the
listing criteria for ELNs, as set forth below.\4\ The Exchange notes
that the Commission has approved similar proposals by the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(2) was approved by the
Commission in September 1996, and was amended once in 2004. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37648 (September 5, 1996), 61
FR 48195 (September 12, 1996) (SR-PSE-96-23) and 50319 (September 7,
2004), 69 FR 55204 (September 13, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-75).
    \5\ Amex's initial listing standards for ELNs are set forth in
Section 107A of the Amex Company Guide, which was approved by the
Commission in March 1990, and Section 107B of the Amex Company
Guide, which was approved by the Commission in May 1993. These
sections have been amended several times. The filings that are
relevant to the topics discussed in this filing are as follows. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 27753 (March 1, 1990), 55 FR
8626 (March 8, 1990) (SR-Amex-89-29) (``Amex March 1990 Release'');
32343 (May 20, 1993), 58 FR 30833 (May 27, 1993) (SR-Amex-92-42)
(``Amex May 1993 Release''); 34549 (August 18, 1994), 59 FR 43873
(August 25, 1994) (SR-Amex-93-46) (``Amex August 1994 Release'');
36990 (March 20, 1996), 61 FR 13545 (March 27, 1996) (SR-Amex-95-44)
(``Amex March 1996 Release''); 37783 (October 4, 1996), 61 FR 53246
(October 10, 1996) (SR-Amex-96-31) (``Amex October 1996 Release'');
47055 (December 19, 2002), 67 FR 79669 (December 30, 2002) (SR-Amex-
2002-110) (``Amex December 2002 Release''); and 55733 (May 10,
2007), 72 FR 27602 (May 16, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-34) (``Amex May 2007
Release'') (collectively ``Amex Releases'').

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

    Number of Linked Securities. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(b)(14)
currently defines ELNs as notes that are linked, in whole or in part,
to the market performance of a common stock, non-convertible preferred
stock, or sponsored American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs''), which may
also be referred to as American Depositary Shares (``ADSs''), overlying
such equity securities. The Exchange proposes to amend the definition
to simply state that ELNs are defined as notes that are linked, in
whole or in part, to the market performance of up to thirty common
stocks or non-convertible preferred stocks. This change conforms to
Section 107B of the Amex Company Guide.\6\ The Exchange proposes to
expand the number of stocks that may be linked to ELNs in order to
accommodate the varying types of ELN products that are currently
offered in the marketplace. The Exchange believes that expanding the
number of stocks that may be linked to ELNs will also provide investors
with enhanced investment flexibility. The Exchange also believes that
there would be no investor protection concerns with expanding the
number of stocks linked to ELNs because each linked stock is required
to individually satisfy the applicable listing standards set forth in
Rule 5.2(j)(2). The Exchange also proposes to delete the reference to
ADRs in Rule 5.1(b)(14), as such matter is covered in the listing
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Amex December 2002 Release, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issuer Listing Standards. Rule 5.2(j)(2)(A) currently provides that
the issuer of ELNs must be an entity that is listed on a national
securities exchange (or an affiliate of a listed company), with a
minimum net worth of $150 million. Further, Rule 5.2(j)(2)(A) provides
that the market value of an ELN offering, when combined with the market
value of all other ELN offerings previously completed by the issuer and
currently traded on a national securities exchange, may not be greater
than 25% of the issuer's net worth at the time of issuance.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the issuer listing standards under
Rule 5.2(j)(2)(A) to provide for alternative minimum tangible net worth
criteria for issuers of ELNs, similar to Section 107B(c) of the Amex
Company Guide.\7\ Under the proposed Rule, an issuer with minimum
tangible net worth in excess of $250 million and otherwise
substantially exceeds the pre-tax income from continuing operations of
at least $750,000 in its last fiscal year, or in two of its last three
fiscal years will not be limited to offerings of ELNs that do not
exceed 25% of its net worth. The Exchange believes that this strikes an
appropriate balance between the Exchange's responsiveness to
innovations in the securities markets and its need to ensure the
protection of investors and the public interest. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that these changes will not have an adverse impact on the
market for ELNs nor its investors since issuers with the lower net
worth of $150 million will still be required to limit the amount of
their ELN offerings to 25% of their net worth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Amex October 1996 Release, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ELNs are dependent upon the individual credit of the issuer. This
heightens the possibility that a holder of an ELN may not be able to
receive full cash settlement at maturity. The Exchange believes that
the proposed alternative net worth standard above, in addition to the
proposed additional financial requirements set forth below, reasonably
addresses this additional credit risk, and may even serve to minimize
this risk.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the issuer listing standards
under Rule 5.2(j)(2)(A) to apply additional financial standards to
issuers, in addition to net worth, which correspond to those set forth
in Section 107A(a) of the Amex Company Guide.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the issuer listing standards to require that
an issuer of ELNs must have assets in excess of $100 million and
stockholders' equity of at least $10 million. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to amend the issuer listing standards to require that an
issuer of ELNs must have one of the following: (i) Pre-tax income from
continuing operations of at least $750,000 in its last fiscal year, or
in two of its last three fiscal years; (ii) assets in excess of $200
million and stockholders' equity of at least $10 million; or (iii)
assets in excess of $100 million and stockholders' equity of at least
$20 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Amex March 1990 Release, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes these additional financial standards to
ensure that only the more financially sound companies will be eligible
to have their ELNs listed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
this is important considering the additional or contingent financial
obligations created by ELNs, and should serve to protect investors and
the public interest by ensuring that the ELNs listed on the Exchange
have met predetermined financial criteria set by the Exchange.
    ELN Listing Standards. Rule 5.2(j)(2)(B) currently provides that an
issue of ELNs must have a minimum public distribution of one million
ELNs, a minimum of 400 holders (provided, however, that if the ELN is
traded in $1,000 denominations, there is no minimum number of holders),
a minimum market value of $4 million, and a minimum term of one year.
    The Exchange proposes to add an exception to the minimum public
distribution standard in Rule 5.2(j)(2)(B) to provide that if the ELN
is traded in $1,000 denominations, there is no minimum public
distribution requirement. This change corresponds to Section 107A(b) of
the Amex Company Guide.\9\ The Exchange notes that, without the
exception to the one million ELN minimum public distribution
requirement, the Exchange would be unable to list ELNs in $1,000 dollar
denominations having a market value of less than $1 billion. The
Exchange believes that the proposed exception is a reasonable
accommodation for those issuances in $1,000 denominations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amex May 2007 Release, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add an exception to the
holders requirement in Rule 5.2(j)(2)(B) to provide that if the ELNs
are redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a
weekly basis, there is no minimum number of holders. This change also
corresponds to Section 107A(b) of the Amex Company Guide.\10\ The
Exchange recently submitted a proposal to the Commission to add this
exception to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) (``Index-Linked
Securities''),\11\ which was based on a rule proposal by the New York
Stock Exchange LLC recently approved by the Commission.\12\ The
Exchange also proposes to clarify that the holders requirement applies
to ``public'' holders only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56593 (October 1,
2007), 72 FR 57362 (October 9, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-96).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56271 (August 16,
2007), 72 FR 47107 (August 22, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that a weekly redemption right will ensure a
strong correlation between the market price of the ELNs and the
performance of the underlying asset, such as a single security or
basket of securities and/or securities index, as holders will be
unlikely to sell their securities for less than their redemption value
if they have a weekly right to redeem such securities for their full
value. In addition, in the case of certain ELNs with a weekly
redemption feature, the issuer may have the ability to issue new ELNs
from time to time at market prices prevailing at the

time of sale, at prices related to market prices, or at negotiated
prices. This provides a ready supply of new ELNs, thereby lessening the
possibility that the market price of such securities will be affected
by a scarcity of available ELNs for sale. The Exchange believes that it
also assists in maintaining a strong correlation between the market
price and the indicative value, as investors will be unlikely to pay
more than the indicative value in the open market if they can acquire
ELNs from the issuer at that price.
    The Exchange believes that the ability to list ELNs with these
characteristics without any minimum number of units issued or holders
is important to the successful listing of such securities. Issuers
issuing these types of ELNs generally do not intend to do so by way of
an underwritten offering. Rather, the distribution arrangement is
analogous to that of an exchange traded fund issuance, in that the
issue is launched without any significant distribution event and the
float increases over time as investors purchase additional securities
from the issuer at the then indicative value. Investors will generally
seek to purchase the securities at a point when the underlying index is
at a level that they perceive as providing an attractive growth
opportunity. In the context of such a distribution arrangement, it is
difficult for an issuer to guarantee its ability to sell a specific
number of units on the listing date. However, the Exchange believes
that this difficulty in ensuring the sale of one million units or 400
public holders on the listing date is not indicative of a likely long-
term lack of liquidity in the securities or, for the reasons set forth
in the prior paragraph, of a difficulty in establishing a pricing
equilibrium in the securities or a successful two-sided market.
    The Linked Securities. Rule 5.2(j)(2)(C) currently provides minimum
standards applicable to the linked securities and the issuers of such
securities. The Rule currently provides that the ELNs must be issued by
either: (i) A U.S. company or (ii) a non-U.S. company that meets
certain additional standards. The Exchange proposes to amend the
language in the Rule to indicate that an issue of ELNs may be linked to
more than one security and, therefore, more than one issuer of a
security, in accordance with the Exchange's proposed amendments to Rule
5.1(b)(14), as set forth above. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
amend the requirement that the issuer be a U.S. company (in order not
to have to meet additional standards of a non-U.S. company) to require
that the issuer be a reporting company under the Act listed on a
national securities exchange. This change corresponds to Section
107B(e) of the Amex Company Guide.\13\ The Exchange proposes this
revision in order to encompass non-U.S. companies that have reporting
requirements under the federal securities laws, which better addresses
the Exchange's concern regarding the public availability of financial
information for the issuers of the underlying securities. The Exchange
believes that such information serves to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Amex May 1993 Release, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Rule 5.2(j)(2)(C) and (D), the Exchange also proposes certain
minor changes in order to clarify certain language, including the
language regarding common shares and American Depositary Shares
(``ADSs''), generally conforming it to Section 107B(e) of the Amex
Company Guide.\14\ In Rule 5.2(j)(2)(D), the Exchange also proposes to
add the standard that if any non-U.S. security and related securities
has less than 20% of the worldwide trading volume occurring in the U.S.
market during the six month period preceding the date of listing, then
the ELN may not be linked to that non-U.S. security. The Exchange
believes that this standard makes sense in the context of the current
Rule,\15\ and notes that it corresponds to Section 107B(f) of the Amex
Company Guide.\16\ The Exchange believes that this additional standard
is appropriate in that it limits the listing of ELNs linked to non-U.S.
securities to those that have a significant amount of U.S. market
trading volume, which provides reasonable assurance that the underlying
non-U.S. securities are deliverable upon exercise of the ELNs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Amex August 1994 Release, note 5, supra.
    \15\ The current Rule provides that the issuance of ELNs
relating to underlying non-U.S. securities cannot exceed certain
percentage limits of the total outstanding shares of the underlying
security. These percentage limits are tied to 20%, 50% and 70% of
worldwide trading volume. Therefore, the Rule as currently in
effect, does not contemplate less than 20% worldwide trading volume.
    \16\ See Amex March 1996 Release, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional Changes. In Rule 5.2(j)(2)(E), the Exchange currently
provides that it will distribute an information circular to ETP Holders
prior to the commencement of trading of particular ELNs in order to
provide guidance to ETP Holders regarding compliance responsibilities
(including suitability recommendations and account approval) when
handling transactions in ELNs. The Exchange proposes to amend this
requirement to provide that the Exchange will evaluate the nature and
complexity of the issue and, if appropriate, distribute an information
circular to ETP Holders, which conforms with Section 107A of the Amex
Company Guide.\17\ In determining whether a circular is necessary, the
Exchange will consider such characteristics of the issue as: Unit size
and term; cash settlement; exercise or call provisions; characteristics
that may affect payment of dividends and/or appreciation potential;
whether the securities are primarily of retail or institutional
interest; and such other features of the issue that might entail
special risks not normally associated with securities currently listed
on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes this change in order to allow
the Exchange greater flexibility while still protecting investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Amex March 1990 Release, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add new Rule 5.2(j)(2)(F), which
provides that ELNs will be treated as equity instruments, in accordance
with Section 107B(g) of the Amex Company Guide.\18\ The Exchange
proposes this change to provide clarity to its ETP Holders that ELNs
will be treated as equity instruments for, among other purposes, margin
treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Amex May 1993 Release, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add that the Exchange may approve for
listing and trading ELN's pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act if
the requirements of proposed Rule 5.2(j)(2) are met.\19\ The Exchange
proposes this change to clarify that this requirement applies to ELN's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Telephone conference between Timothy J. Malinowski,
Director, Exchange, and Michou H.M. Nguyen, Special Counsel,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, on December 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in particular in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaging in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 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, by NYSE Arca.

III. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File

Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-98 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-98. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-NYSEArca-2007-98 and should
be submitted by January 3, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange \22\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act.\23\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. The proposal seeks to
conform the Exchange's rules for ELNs to the rules of the Amex that
have previously been approved by the Commission.\25\ Therefore, the
Commission does not believe that the Exchange's proposal raises any
novel regulatory issues. The Commission believes that accelerating
approval of this proposal should benefit investors by creating, without
undue delay, additional competition in the market for ELNs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Amex Rules 101 and 107; see also Amex Release, note 5
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\26\ to approve the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\27\ that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-NYSEArca-2007-
98), be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24134 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65718-65719]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. ER12-85-000]

Owings Corning Sales, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Owings Corning Sales, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability, is November 1, 2011.
    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 Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding 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>.

    Dated: October 18, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27386 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14793]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of Shoreline Management Plan
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene and Protests

March 22, 2007.
    a. Type of Application: Application to amend the shoreline
management plan to change land classifications.
    b. Project Number: P-1417-198.
    c. Date Filed: February 12, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation
District.
    e. Name of Project: Kingsley Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 1417.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Platte and North Platte
Rivers in Keith, Adams, Gosper, Phelps, Lincoln, Dawson, and Kearney
Counties, Nebraska.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
and Sec. Sec.  799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Michael Drain, Natural Resources Manager,
Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, 415 Lincoln S.,
P.O. Box 740, Hodrege, NE 68949, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Chris Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: April 23, 2007.
    k. Description of Request: Central Nebraska Public Power and
Irrigation District proposes to change the classification of shoreline
lands along Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir from open-space/pasture to
residential. The proposed change will correct errors in the initial
land classification, and accommodate ongoing development of a pre-
existing subdivision and new subdivision outside of the project
boundary. The areas proposed for reclassification are located along the
east and southeast shoreline. The amendment proposal was developed
after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission, and Dawson and Gosper Counties.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (p-1417) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (p-1417-198). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. 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 at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5696 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 64062-64063]
[DOCID:fr07de09-875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket Nos. CP10-23-000; CP10-24-000]

UGI Storage Company, UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc.; Notice of
Application

November 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on November 19, 2009, UGI Storage Company (UGI
Storage), 460 North Gulph Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406,
filed in Docket Number CP10-23-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), an application for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity to acquire, own, and operate in interstate
commerce certain existing natural gas storage facilities located in
Tioga, Potter, and Cameron counties, Pennsylvania. Additionally, UGI
Storage requests a blanket certificate authorizing it to engage in
certain self-implementing activities under part 157, subpart F, and a
blanket certificate under part 284, subpart G, authorizing UGI Storage
to provide open access, non-discriminatory firm and interruptible
natural gas storage services. UGI Storage also requests authorization
to charge market-based rates for its proposed storage services and
approval of its Pro Forma Gas Tariff.
    Concurrently, on November 19, 2009, UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc.
(CPG), 2525 N. 12th Street, Suite 360, P.O. Box 12677, Reading,
Pennsylvania 19612-2677, filed in Docket Number CP10-24-000, an
application under section 7 of the NGS to obtain authorization to
partially abandon the blanket certificate issued to its predecessor
North Penn Gas Company, pursuant to section 284.224 of the Commission's
regulations. Specifically, CPG requests permission to abandon the
portion of the blanket certificate applicable to storage service.
    These filings are available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room 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 field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding these applications should be directed to
Frank H. Markle, Senior Counsel, UGI Corporation, Box 858, Valley
Forge, PA 19482; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 below listed comment date, 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 14 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: December 21, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29034 Filed 12-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52374-52375]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21320]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65140; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-116]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending
the Pilot Period To Receive Inbound Routes of Orders From NASDAQ
Options Services

August 16, 2011.
    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 August 11, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared 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

    Phlx submits this proposed rule change to extend the pilot period
of Phlx's prior approval to receive inbound routes of certain option
orders from Nasdaq Options Services, LLC (``NOS'') through November 25,
2011.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Phlx 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. Phlx 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
    Currently, NOS is the approved outbound routing facility of The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') for options, providing outbound
routing from The NASDAQ Option Market (``NOM'') to other market
centers.\3\ Phlx also has been previously approved to receive inbound
routes of certain option orders by NOS in its capacity as an order
routing facility of NASDAQ for NOM on a pilot basis.\4\ The Exchange
hereby seeks to extend the previously approved pilot period for such
inbound routing (with the attendant obligations and conditions) for an
additional 3 months through November 25, 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NOM Rule Chapter VI, Section 11; See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008)
(SR-NASDAQ-2007-004; SR-NASDAQ-2007-080).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58179 (July 17,
2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-31); 61667 (March
5, 2010), 75 FR 11964 (March 12, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-36); 61668
(March 5, 2010), 75 FR 12323 (March 15, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-028);
63873 (February 9, 2011), 76 FR 8798 (February 15, 2011) (SR-Phlx-
2011-16).
    \5\ The Exchange has filed a separate proposal with the
Commission seeking permanent approval of the Phlx and NOS routing
relationship. See SR-Phlx-2011-111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. Specifically,
the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to continue receiving
inbound routes of option orders from NOS acting in its capacity as a
facility of NASDAQ for NOM, in a manner consistent with prior approvals
and established protections. The Exchange believes that extending the
previously approved pilot period for three months is of sufficient
length to permit both the Exchange and the

Commission to assess the impact of the Exchange's authority to receive
direct inbound routes of option orders via NOS (including the attendant
obligations and conditions) while the Commission evaluates the
Exchange's pending rule change to make the pilot program permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest because it seeks to extend for a limited period a currently
operating pilot program so as to allow the Exchange and Commission to
assess whether to make the pilot permanent in accordance with its
attendant obligations and conditions.\10\ The Commission believes that
waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the
pilot period to be extended without undue delay through November 25,
2011 while the Exchange's proposal to make the pilot permanent is under
consideration. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See SR-Phlx-2011-116, Item 7.
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-116 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-Phlx-2011-116. 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 Web site viewing and
printing 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 offices
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-
Phlx-2011-116, and should be submitted on or before September 12, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21320 Filed 8-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 49543-49544]
[DOCID:fr13au10-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62663; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-077]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Pricing for Direct Circuit
Connections

August 9, 2010.
    On June 21, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish pricing for 10Gb direct circuit
connections and codify pricing for 1Gb direct circuit connections for
customers who are not co-located in NASDAQ's datacenter. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July
6, 2010.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal.
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62392 (July 6,
2010), 75 FR 38857 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, NASDAQ proposed to establish fees for direct 10Gb
circuit connections, and codify fees for direct circuit connections
capable of supporting up to 1Gb, for customers who are not co-located
at the Exchange's datacenter. NASDAQ represented that it already makes
available to co-located customers a 10Gb circuit connection and charges
for each a $1000 initial installation charge as well as an ongoing

monthly fee of $5000. The Exchange proposed to establish the same fees
for non-co-located customers with a 10Gb circuit connection.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ According to the Exchange, NASDAQ provides an additional 1Gb
copper connection option for co-located customers. NASDAQ
represented that, given the technological constraints of copper
connections over longer distances, it does not offer a copper
connection option to users outside of its datacenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ represented that it also already makes available to both co-
located and non-co-located customers direct connections capable of
supporting up to 1Gb, with per connection monthly fees of $500 for co-
located customers and $1000 for non co-located customers. According to
the Exchange, monthly fees are higher for non-co-located customers
because direct connections require NASDAQ to provide cabinet space and
middleware for those customers' third-party vendors to connect into the
datacenter and, ultimately, to the trading system. Finally, the
Exchange represented that for non-co-located customers, it charges an
optional installation fee of $925 if the customer chooses to use an on-
site router.
    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and issuers and other persons using its facilities, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities 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, and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed fees for 10Gb and 1Gb
direct circuit connections are reasonable and equitably allocated
insofar as they are applied on the same terms to similarly-situated
market participants. In addition, the Commission believes that the
connectivity options described in the proposed rule change are not
unfairly discriminatory because NASDAQ makes the 10Gb and 1Gb direct
circuit connections uniformly available to all non-co-located customers
who voluntarily request them and pay the fees as detailed in the
proposal. As represented by NASDAQ, these fees are uniform for all such
customers and are either the same as fees charged to co-located
customers, or vary due to different costs incurred by NASDAQ associated
with providing service to the two different customer types. Finally,
the Commission believes that the proposal will further the protection
of investors and the public interest because it will provide greater
transparency regarding the connectivity options available to market
participants.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2010-077) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19972 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17174-17175]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07027]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0048; FRL-9960-53-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Energy and
Environment Cabinet's Division of Air Quality on August 26, 2016,
regarding the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements for
the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-
Indiana 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to
as the ``Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area'' or ``Area''). The Area
consists of Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in
Ohio; portions of Boone, Campbell, Kenton Counties in Kentucky; and a
portion of Dearborn County in Indiana. This action is being taken
pursuant to the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-

OAR-2017-0048 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    In the Final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the portion of Kentucky's August 26, 2016, SIP revision
addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule and incorporated herein by reference. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated.
If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all adverse comments received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: March 15, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-07027 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 53701]
[DOCID:fr01se10-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0394]

Clinical Studies of Safety and Effectiveness of Orphan Products
Research Project Grant (R01); Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of August 6, 2010 (75 FR 47602).
The document announced the availability of grant funds for the support
of FDA's Office of Orphan Products Development (OPD) grant program. The
document was published with an error. This document corrects that
error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vieda Hubbard, Acquisition Support and
Grants, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2010-19354, appearing on page
47602 in the Federal Register of Friday, August 6, 2010, the following
correction is made:
    1. On page 47602, in the second column, in the ``DATES'' section,
beginning in the sixth line, the sentence ``2. The anticipated start
dates are November 2010; November 2012.'' is corrected to read ``2. The
anticipated start dates are November 2011 and November 2012.''

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-21795 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: November 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 69620]
[DOCID:fr19no08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-18-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application

November 13, 2008.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2008, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219, filed an application in
Docket No. CP09-18-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for a certificate
of public convenience and necessity to construct, install, own, operate
and maintain 9.42 miles of 24-inch-diameter loop pipeline in Greene
County, Pennsylvania and a rewheel of an existing compressor station
turbine in Wetzal County, West Virginia (Dominion Hub III Project). The
project will allow existing DTI firm transportation customers to move a
total 224,317 Dth per day of their existing firm receipt rights to the
planned interconnection with Rockies Express Pipeline LLC in
Clarington, Ohio. DTI proposes to charge shippers using the new
Clarington receipt point an incremental surcharge in addition to their
existing firm transportation rates.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Matthew R. Bley, Manager, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219, telephone
no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile no.<PHONE_NUMBER> and e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Comment Date: December 4, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27412 Filed 11-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P