(1) As in CTDM, the basic plume rise algorithms are based on
Briggs' (1975) recommendations.
    (2) A central feature of CTDMPLUS for neutral/stable conditions
is its use of a critical dividing-streamline height (Hc)
to separate the flow in the vicinity of a hill into two separate
layers. The plume component in the upper layer has sufficient
kinetic energy to pass over the top of the hill while streamlines in
the lower portion are constrained to flow in a horizontal plane
around the hill. Two separate components of CTDMPLUS compute ground-
level concentrations resulting from plume material in each of these
flows.
    (3) The model calculates on an hourly (or appropriate steady
averaging period) basis how the plume trajectory (and, in stable/
neutral conditions, the shape) is deformed by each hill. Hourly
profiles of wind and temperature measurements are used by CTDMPLUS
to compute plume rise, plume penetration (a formulation is included
to handle penetration into elevated stable layers, based on Briggs
(1984)), convective scaling parameters, the value of Hc,
and the Froude number above Hc.

h. Horizontal Winds

    CTDMPLUS does not simulate calm meteorological conditions. Both
scalar and vector wind speed observations can be read by the model.
If vector wind speed is unavailable, it is calculated from the
scalar wind speed. The assignment of wind speed (either vector or
scalar) at plume height is done by either:
     Interpolating between observations above and below the
plume height, or
     Extrapolating (within the surface layer) from the
nearest measurement height to the plume height.

i. Vertical Wind Speed

    Vertical flow is treated for the plume component above the
critical dividing streamline height (Hc); see ``Plume
Behavior.''

j. Horizontal Dispersion

    Horizontal dispersion for stable/neutral conditions is related
to the turbulence velocity scale for lateral fluctuations, [sigma]v,
for which a minimum value of 0.2 m/s is used. Convective scaling
formulations are used to estimate horizontal dispersion for unstable
conditions.

k. Vertical Dispersion

    Direct estimates of vertical dispersion for stable/neutral
conditions are based on observed vertical turbulence intensity,
e.g., [sigma]w (standard deviation of the vertical velocity
fluctuation). In simulating unstable (convective) conditions,
CTDMPLUS relies on a skewed, bi-Gaussian probability density
function (pdf) description of the vertical velocities to estimate
the vertical distribution of pollutant concentration.

l. Chemical Transformation

    Chemical transformation is not treated by CTDMPLUS.

m. Physical Removal

    Physical removal is not treated by CTDMPLUS (complete reflection
at the ground/hill surface is assumed).

n. Evaluation Studies

Burns, D.J., L.H. Adams and S.G. Perry, 1990. Testing and Evaluation
of the CTDMPLUS Dispersion Model: Daytime Convective Conditions.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Paumier, J.O., S.G. Perry and D.J. Burns, 1990. An Analysis of
CTDMPLUS Model Predictions with the Lovett Power Plant Data Base.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Paumier, J.O., S.G. Perry and D.J. Burns, 1992. CTDMPLUS: A
Dispersion Model for Sources near Complex Topography. Part II:
Performance Characteristics. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 31(7):
646-660.

A.3 OCD (Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model)

Reference

DiCristofaro, D.C. and S.R. Hanna, 1989. OCD: The Offshore and
Coastal Dispersion Model, Version 4. Volume I: User's Guide, and
Volume II: Appendices. Sigma Research Corporation, Westford, MA.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#ocd. (NTIS Nos.
PB 93-144384 and PB 93-144392)

Availability

    The model codes and associated documentation are available on
EPA's SCRAM Web site (paragraph A.0(3)). Official contact at
Minerals Management Service: Mr. Dirk Herkhof, Parkway Atrium
Building, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170, Phone: (703) 787-
1735.

Abstract

    (1) OCD is a straight-line Gaussian model developed to determine
the impact of offshore emissions from point, area or line sources on
the air quality of coastal regions. OCD incorporates overwater plume
transport and dispersion as well as changes that occur as the plume
crosses the shoreline. Hourly meteorological data are needed from
both offshore and onshore locations. These include water surface
temperature, overwater air temperature, mixing height, and relative
humidity.
    (2) Some of the key features include platform building downwash,
partial plume penetration into elevated inversions, direct use of
turbulence intensities for plume dispersion, interaction with the
overland internal boundary layer, and continuous shoreline
fumigation.

a. Recommendations for Regulatory Use

    OCD has been recommended for use by the Minerals Management
Service for emissions located on the Outer Continental Shelf (50 FR
12248; 28 March 1985). OCD is applicable for overwater sources where
onshore receptors are below the lowest source height. Where onshore
receptors are above the lowest source height, offshore plume
transport and dispersion may be modeled on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph
3.0(b)).

b. Input Requirements

    (1) Source data: Point, area or line source location, pollutant
emission rate, building height, stack height, stack gas temperature,
stack inside diameter, stack gas exit velocity, stack angle from
vertical, elevation of stack base above water surface and gridded
specification of the land/water surfaces. As an option, emission
rate, stack gas exit velocity and temperature can be varied hourly.
    (2) Meteorological data (over water): Wind direction, wind
speed, mixing height, relative humidity, air temperature, water
surface temperature, vertical wind direction shear (optional),
vertical temperature gradient (optional), turbulence intensities
(optional).
    (3) Meteorological data:
    Over land: Surface weather data from a preprocessor such as
PCRAMMET which provides hourly stability class, wind direction, wind
speed, ambient temperature, and mixing height are required.
    Over water: Hourly values for mixing height, relative humidity,
air temperature, and water surface temperature are required; if wind
speed/direction are missing, values over land will be used (if
available); vertical wind direction shear, vertical temperature
gradient, and turbulence intensities are optional.
    (4) Receptor data: Location, height above local ground-level,
ground-level elevation above the water surface.

c. Output

    (1) All input options, specification of sources, receptors and
land/water map including locations of sources and receptors.
    (2) Summary tables of five highest concentrations at each
receptor for each averaging period, and average concentration for
entire run period at each receptor.
    (3) Optional case study printout with hourly plume and receptor
characteristics. Optional table of annual impact assessment from
non-permanent activities.
    (4) Concentration output files can be used by ANALYSIS
postprocessor to produce the highest concentrations for each
receptor, the cumulative frequency distributions for each receptor,
the tabulation of all concentrations exceeding a given threshold,
and the manipulation of hourly concentration files.

d. Type of Model

    OCD is a Gaussian plume model constructed on the framework of
the MPTER model.

e. Pollutant Types

    OCD may be used to model primary pollutants. Settling and
deposition are not treated.

f. Source-Receptor Relationship

    (1) Up to 250 point sources, 5 area sources, or 1 line source
and 180 receptors may be used.
    (2) Receptors and sources are allowed at any location.
    (3) The coastal configuration is determined by a grid of up to
3600 rectangles. Each element of the grid is designated as either
land or water to identify the coastline.

g. Plume Behavior

    (1) As in ISC, the basic plume rise algorithms are based on
Briggs' recommendations.
    (2) Momentum rise includes consideration of the stack angle from
the vertical.
    (3) The effect of drilling platforms, ships, or any overwater
obstructions near the source are used to decrease plume rise using a
revised platform downwash algorithm based on laboratory experiments.
    (4) Partial plume penetration of elevated inversions is included
using the suggestions of Briggs (1975) and Weil and Brower (1984).
    (5) Continuous shoreline fumigation is parameterized using the
Turner method where complete vertical mixing through the thermal
internal boundary layer (TIBL) occurs as soon as the plume
intercepts the TIBL.

h. Horizontal Winds

    (1) Constant, uniform wind is assumed for each hour.
    (2) Overwater wind speed can be estimated from overland wind
speed using relationship of Hsu (1981).
    (3) Wind speed profiles are estimated using similarity theory
(Businger, 1973). Surface layer fluxes for these formulas are
calculated from bulk aerodynamic methods.

i. Vertical Wind Speed

    Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.

j. Horizontal Dispersion

    (1) Lateral turbulence intensity is recommended as a direct
estimate of horizontal dispersion. If lateral turbulence intensity
is not available, it is estimated from boundary layer theory. For
wind speeds less than 8 m/s, lateral turbulence intensity is assumed
inversely proportional to wind speed.
    (2) Horizontal dispersion may be enhanced because of
obstructions near the source. A virtual source technique is used to
simulate the initial plume dilution due to downwash.
    (3) Formulas recommended by Pasquill (1976) are used to
calculate buoyant plume enhancement and wind direction shear
enhancement.
    (4) At the water/land interface, the change to overland
dispersion rates is modeled using a virtual source. The overland
dispersion rates can be calculated from either lateral turbulence
intensity or Pasquill-Gifford curves. The change is implemented
where the plume intercepts the rising internal boundary layer.

k. Vertical Dispersion

    (1) Observed vertical turbulence intensity is not recommended as
a direct estimate of vertical dispersion. Turbulence intensity
should be estimated from boundary layer theory as default in the
model. For very stable conditions, vertical dispersion is also a
function of lapse rate.
    (2) Vertical dispersion may be enhanced because of obstructions
near the source. A virtual source technique is used to simulate the
initial plume dilution due to downwash.
    (3) Formulas recommended by Pasquill (1976) are used to
calculate buoyant plume enhancement.
    (4) At the water/land interface, the change to overland
dispersion rates is modeled using a virtual source. The overland
dispersion rates can be calculated from either vertical turbulence
intensity or the Pasquill-Gifford coefficients. The change is
implemented where the plume intercepts the rising internal boundary
layer.

l. Chemical Transformation

    Chemical transformations are treated using exponential decay.
Different rates can be specified by month and by day or night.

m. Physical Removal

    Physical removal is also treated using exponential decay.

n. Evaluation Studies

DiCristofaro, D.C. and S.R. Hanna, 1989. OCD: The Offshore and
Coastal Dispersion Model. Volume I: User's Guide. Sigma Research
Corporation, Westford, MA.
Hanna, S.R., L.L. Schulman, R.J. Paine and J.E. Pleim, 1984. The
Offshore and Coastal Dispersion (OCD) Model User's Guide, Revised.
OCS Study, MMS 84-0069. Environmental Research & Technology, Inc.,
Concord, MA. (NTIS No. PB 86-159803).
Hanna, S.R., L.L. Schulman, R.J. Paine, J.E. Pleim and M. Baer,
1985. Development and Evaluation of the Offshore and Coastal
Dispersion (OCD) Model. Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 35: 1039-1047.
Hanna, S.R. and D.C. DiCristofaro, 1988. Development and Evaluation
of the OCD/API Model. Final Report, API Pub. 4461, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

[FR Doc. 2015-18075 Filed 7-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36079-36080]
[DOCID:fr02jy07-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55955; File No. SR-Amex-2007-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Extension of the Pilot Period Applicable to the Listing
and Trading of Options on the ishares MSCI Emerging Markets Index

June 25, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 5, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
\3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On May 17, 2006, the Commission approved an Amex proposal to list
and trade the Fund Options for a 60-day pilot period that expired July
2, 2006 (the ``Pilot'').\5\ The Commission approved 90-day extensions
of the Pilot on June 30, 2006 \ 6\ and September 29, 2006,\7\
respectively. In addition, the Commission on January 3, 2007, approved
a 180-day extension to the

Pilot from January 2, 2007 through June 30, 2007.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53824 (May 17,
2006), 71 FR 30003 (May 24, 2006).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54081 (June 30,
2006), 71 FR 38911 (July 10, 2006).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54553 (September 29,
2006), 71 FR 59561 (October 10, 2006).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55040 (January 3,
2007), 72 FR 1348 (January 11, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Amex proposes to extend the Pilot for an additional six months,
until December 31, 2007. The Exchange represents that the Fund Options
will continue to meet substantially all of the listing and maintenance
standards in Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 915 and Commentary .07 to Amex
Rule 916. For the requirements that are not satisfied, the Exchange
continues to represent that sufficient mechanisms exist that would
provide the Exchange with adequate surveillance and regulatory
information with respect to the Fund Options. Continuation of the Pilot
would permit the Exchange to continue to work with the Bolsa Mexicana
de Valores (``Bolsa'') to develop a surveillance sharing agreement.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to extend the Pilot for an
additional six months, until December 31, 2007.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, because 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing (or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest), and the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five
days prior to the filing date, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to thirty days after the date of
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Amex has requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day delayed operative delay.\14\ The
Commission believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Waiver of the 30-day operative period will extend the Pilot, which
would otherwise expire on June 30, 2007, and allow the Amex to continue
in its efforts to obtain a surveillance agreement with Bolsa.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and
operative upon filing with the Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ 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. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2007-57 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-Amex-2007-57. 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 Amex. 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-Amex-2007-57 and should be
submitted on or before July 23, 2007 in the Federal Register.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-12709 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM

From:	Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC
(D243-02)

	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>v

Date:		September 30, 2009

Subject:	Rule Improvements for Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP

(40 CFR Part 63 Subpart RRR)

1.	Definitions and Applicability

Clean Charge

Add more quantitative measure of “clean” charge/scrap.

Add specific methods to be used to prove scrap is entirely free of
contaminants (see Operation & Monitoring, below).

Add specifications for cleaning processes (e.g., for runaround scrap),
such as:

Minimum residence time and temperature for thermal drying process.

Minimum RPM speed and residence time for centrifuging processes.

Add that sows, ingots, and t-bars with only paint markings are still
considered clean charge.

Add OECA clarification on how to ‘know’ if it is clean and/or
entirely free of paints, coatings, and lubricants:

Must have some knowledge of the processes applied to the scrap material
by maintaining direct control of the scrap or by knowing the processes
utilized by outside entities that have supplied the scrap.

Must have some knowledge of the history of that scrap material such that
they may know that the material is “entirely free of paints, coatings,
and lubricants.”  “Entirely free” indicates that the scrap must
contain no paints, coatings, or lubricants.  This knowledge can be
gained through several methods.  One method would be to maintain direct
control of the scrap material being processed and only process scrap
generated within the facility or from other facilities within the same
company that the owner or operators knows has not been subjected to
paints, coatings and lubricants or where they know paints, coatings or
lubricants have been removed consistent with the definition of “Clean
charge”.  Similarly, the owner or operators may also process scrap
from outside entities where they are familiar with the history of the
scrap and therefore, know that the scrap meets the definition of
“clean charge.”

Add OECA clarification on methods that would not allow owners or
operators to “know” scrap is clean:

Secondary aluminum production facilities may receive bales of aluminum
scrap from scrap vendors.  The scrap is accumulated from a variety of
sources and the owner or operator may conduct a cursory inspection of
the scrap bales to determine whether the material is “entirely free of
paints, coatings, and lubricants.”  This type of inspection is
insufficient and does not provide the owner or operator sufficient
information regarding the scrap such that they may know that the scrap
is “entirely free of paints, coatings, and lubricants.”  Even more
thorough inspections of the scrap may be insufficient, since the scrap
may contain clear coated materials or lubricants not visible on the
outside of the scrap.  Consequently, scrap inspection alone may not
provide owners or operators sufficient knowledge of the scrap such that
they can know that the scrap is “entirely free of paints, coatings,
and lubricants.”

Anodized Aluminum Scrap

Exclude anodized aluminum scrap from the clean charge definition since
dyes may be used as part of the anodizing process, which could
volatilize in the furnace and contribute to THC or D/F emissions.

Secondary Aluminum Processing Unit (SAPU) - Existing vs. New

Clarify definitions to indicate that there can only be ONE existing SAPU
and ONE new.  The existing/new SAPU includes all existing/new Group 1
furnaces and all existing new inline fluxers at a single facility.

Scrap Shredders

Clarify that all scrap shredders processing other than clean scrap are
subject to the rule.

Clarify that all scrap shredders that generate visible emissions as
determined by EPA Method 22 are subject to the rule regardless of
whether scrap is considered clean or not.

Exempt shredders that always process clean scrap and don’t generate
visible emissions as determined by EPA Method 22.  Minimally, exempt
from periodic testing.

Thermal Chip Dryers

Clarify that a device that uses heat to evaporate water, oil, or
oil/water mixtures from unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips is subject to
subpart RRR.

Furnaces that Are Affected Sources

Identical Furnaces - Identify criteria under which furnaces may be
defined as “identical.”

Examples of possible criteria:  temperature, processing rate, design,
scrap materials charged to the furnaces, etc.

Stationary Furnace with Internal Heaters - Clarify that a furnace that
is not portable and has internal heaters and is used to hold molten
aluminum is a furnace under subpart RRR.

Furnaces that are Not Affected Sources

Transport Pots - Clarify that pots used to transport metal to customers
are not furnaces.

Diecaster Holding Furnace - Clarify that a furnace used by a diecaster
that only metals or holds clean charge is not a subpart RRR furnace
(diecaster does not have a sweat furnace or thermal chip dryer or scrap
dryer, and does not use flux or only uses nonreactive nonHAP flux)

Sweat Furnace

Clarify that any furnace that charges objects containing aluminum and is
tipped to pour out molten aluminum is a sweat furnace. (Does this mean
that tapping to get the melted aluminum out makes a furnace a Group 1 or
2 furnace?)

Bale Breaker

Clarify that this is a device used to break the ties holding a bale of
aluminum scrap before it is fed into the shredder and which is not also
a scrap shredder.

Scalpers

Clarify that scalpers used to remove rough spots from ingots prior to
rolling into various product shapes are not subject to subpart RRR and
are considered to be equipment in aluminum product manufacturing.

Capture and Collection System -- Add definition.

Residence Time of an Afterburner

Clarify that this is the total time required for gases to pass through
the afterburner combustion chamber, which does not include the furnace,
ductwork, or stack.

Fluxes

Cover Flux in Rotary or Other Agitated Furnaces

Clarify that any flux used in a rotary furnace is by design agitated;
therefore, any flux used for “cover” or otherwise in this type of
furnace is considered reactive

Add definitions for agitated and non-agitated furnaces.

Cover Flux Used to Also Remove Impurities

Clarify how to distinguish between cover flux that only prevents
oxidation vs. cover flux that also removes impurities (and is therefore
reactive?) which can result in HAP emissions at a later point.

Continuous vs., Batch (intermittent) Flux Additions

Add definitions so that different monitoring strategies can be set (see
below).

Feed/charge Rate

Clarify that the feed/charge rates obtained during performance tests
should be used to calculate the emission limit for each pollutant from
each SAPU

Thermal Delaminating of Aluminum Scrap and Mechanical Granulation of
Recovered Metal are Affected Sources under Subpart RRR

Heat is used to separate aluminum foil from paper and plastic in scrap,

Chambers operate at a maximum temperature of 900F and no melting of the
recovered aluminum occurs in the chamber

Subsequent melting of recovered aluminum need not occur at the same
facility that conducts the recovery operation.

2.	Reporting

Area Sources:  Add annual compliance certification reports (currently
exempt from Title V permits).  Similar to requirements in EPA’s 40 CFR
part 63 area source program.

Semi-annual Report Formats.  Add minimum requirements to be included in
these reports.

3.	Operating and Monitoring Requirements

Add/expand Monitoring Requirements for:

Capture and collection systems

Reactive flux injection rate

Lime injection rate (lb/hr) verification during daily operation

Feed/charge weight at scrap dryers/delacquering kilns and decoating
kilns

Establish feed/charge weight parameters during performance test

Reactive flux injection furnaces “charge and top” operations

Include alternative process control monitoring?

Scrap inspection

Add how to collect representative sample for oil content.

Add how to correlate visual inspections with physical measurements

Ceramic candle filter control devices

Molten level at passage between sidewell and hearth during reactive
fluxing

Specify how to establish molten level

Specify different monitoring intervals for continuous charging
(@15 minutes) vs., batch (@batch charge addition)

Control measures not required by rule but used during performance test
to control pollutants with emission limits under the rule.

For example, ammonia or carbon injection rates used to control D/F.

Reduce Monitoring Requirements:

Solid flux

Add monitoring only when solid flux is added for batch/intermittent flux
additions; keep monitoring for every 15 minutes with continuous flux
additions.

O&M Plan Revisions

Require submission for approval of ANY changes and forbid operation
before plan is approved.

Require minimum time (3 months?) to submit for approval prior to a
planned change in operation.

Clarify options under 63.1510(o) (Site-specific monitoring for Group 1
furnace without add-on air pollution control devices)

Clarify that 63.1510 does NOT apply to a SAPU that has already
demonstrated compliance on an individual unit basis, as per 63.1510(u).

Require repeat testing of actual volumetric flowrates of hoods during
annual inspection of hood operational integrity

Allowable Operating Conditions

Clarify feed/charge rate in operation vs. during performance tests

Clarify that can exceed performance test charge weight as long as the
performance test is still representative of facility operation at
highest emission level of all pollutants.  For example, if clean charge
is added to regular charge in Group 2 furnace and final weight is above
performance test rate but not if clean charge is excluded, or if all
clean charge us used in a Group 2 furnace at feed rate higher than the
test rate.

NOT Allowable Operating Conditions

[Add any situations that need to be listed]

Thermocouple Calibration for Afterburners

Clarify that a second thermocouple can be used in a dual calibration
system instead of the rule required calibration; if minimally weekly
checks are done for agreement of the dual thermocouples.

4.	Performance Testing

Feed/charge Rate

Clarify requirements to determine feed/charge rate used during
performance test that will be used to calculate emissions for each
pollutant.

Clarify that all the feed/charge rate during ALL performance testing is
required to be the level that is likely to create the highest emissions
(of pollutant known to be the highest emitters, or all pollutants, if
possible)

Frequency of Testing

Clarify that testing needs to be done every five years to show
compliance regardless of level of emissions.

Multiple Emission Units:

Clarify for SAPU and non-SAPU ducted to a common control device.

Clarify for identical furnaces (to reduce individual testing).

Temporary Enclosures for Collection of Fugitive Emissions

Add requirement to capture fugitive emissions during testing

Add requirement to account for fugitives that could be lost from furnace
or other doors being opened during tests.

Add requirement for temporary enclosure to be used if not possible to
capture fugitives otherwise.

Additional Data to be Collected during Performance Tests

Require documentation of the type of scrap processed during performance
test.

Require testing/documentation of flow rate for each hood and
capture/collection system.

Require testing/documentation operating levels of control measures used
during performance test to reduce emissions although not explicitly
required by rule (e.g., ammonia or carbon injection to control D/F).

Exemptions from Performance Tests

Scrap shredders that always process clean scrap and don’t generate
visible emissions (due to low speed and or other parameters) as
determined by EPA Method 22 should be exempt from periodic testing, if
not exempt from rule.

Group 1 furnaces operated <130oF (as measured at the inlet and outlet)
should be exempted from afterburner testing for dioxin/furans

D/F formation temperature is >130 oF.

Hood Performance Tests

Clarify that the volumetric flowrate ENTERING the hood should be used
and not the stack exit flow.

Clarify that testing of hood flowrate can be done BEFORE performance
test is begun (so can readjust before testing whole system); need to
retest hood after adjustments.

Clarify that must measure actual volumetric flowrate of hood during
lowest expected air flow conditions (ambient air damper in most open
position).

Method 22 Testing

Add allowance for testing in three 20 minute intervals, with greater
than 10 minute breaks in between for a total test time of 60 minutes.

5.	Calculations

Hoods

Can only use high canopy hood equation if low canopy equation is not
appropriate, i.e., where the distance between the hood and the hot
source is greater than the diameter of the source or greater than 3
feet, which ever is larger.

Multiple Control Devices:

Clarify calculations for individual furnaces ducted to a common control
device.

Emissions Calculations to Meet Limits in Terms of Mass of Product

[Would this be useful?]

6.	Corrections Where Requirements Are Obsolete or Erroneous

Ventilation System Requirements:

Remove ACGIH Ventilation Manual (23rd edition) that is incorporated by
reference.  This manual is no longer available for purchase, is
outdated.  Also, EPA no longer incorporates non-Agency documents such as
operating manuals.

Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS) Requirements:

Remove 1997 guidance document on bag leak detection systems.  Current
BLDS operate digitally, which is not covered in 1997 guidance.

Add requirement that manufacturer’s operating instructions should be
followed at all times.

7.	Typographical Corrections

§63.1503 Definitions: Clean Charge

Replace comma with semicolon before the phrase: “…and runaround
scrap,” as follows:

Clean charge means furnace charge materials, including molten aluminum;
T-bar; sow; ingot; billet; pig; alloying elements; aluminum scrap known
by the owner or operator to be entirely free of paints, coatings, and
lubricants; uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips that have been thermally
dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner; aluminum scrap dried at 343
°C (650 °F) or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/ decoated at 482 °C
(900 °F) or higher; and runaround scrap.

§ 63.1505.  Emission standards for affected sources and emission units;
(k) Secondary aluminum processing.

Correct Equation 1 legend for Tti = feed/charge rate for individual
emission unit I:

Change “emission unit I” to “emission unit i” to be consistent
with other equations in the rule..

§ 63.1510(n)(2).  Sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution
control devices

Change reference citing § 63.1506(m)(7) to §63.1506(m)(6).  There is
no §63.1506(m)(7) and  §63.1506(m)(6) has the right information..

  FILENAME  SECAL-ANPR-Amendments-Memo-09-30-09.doc 	Page   PAGE  2  of
 NUMPAGES  7

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44063-44065]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15919]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32166; 812-14651]

Fidelity Commonwealth Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

June 29, 2016.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1
under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an
exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under
section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-
based series of certain open-end management investment companies
(``Funds'') to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only
(``Creation Units''); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares
to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value
(``NAV''); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain
circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for
redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit
securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection
with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain
registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts
outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (``Funds
of Funds'') to acquire shares of the Funds; and (f) certain Funds
(``Feeder Funds'') to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a
master-feeder structure.

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

    Applicants: Fidelity Commonwealth Trust and Fidelity Covington
Trust (each, a ``Trust''), each a Massachusetts business trust
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company,
FMR Co., Inc., a Massachusetts corporation registered as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers
Act'') and Fidelity SelectCo, LLC (together with FMR Co., Inc., the
``Initial Advisers'' and individually, each an ``Initial Adviser''), a
Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser
under the Advisers Act, and Fidelity Distributors Corporation
(``Distributor''), a Massachusetts corporation and broker-dealer
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'').

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 20, 2016, and
amended on June 27, 2016.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on July 25, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: The Trusts and FMR Co.,
Inc., 245 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210; Fidelity SelectCo, LLC, 1225
17th Street, Suite 1100, Denver, CO 80202; and the Distributor, 100
Salem Street, Smithfield, RI 02917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark N. Zaruba, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6878, or Dalia O. Blass, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202)
551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as
index exchange traded funds (``ETFs'').\1\ Fund shares will be
purchased and redeemed at their NAV in Creation Units only. All orders
to purchase Creation Units and all redemption requests will be placed
by or through an ``Authorized Participant'', which will have signed a
participant agreement with the Distributor. Shares will be listed and
traded individually on a national securities exchange, where share
prices will be based on the current bid/offer market. Certain Funds may
operate as Feeder Funds in a master-feeder structure. Any order
granting the requested relief would be subject to the terms and
conditions stated in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to the existing
series of each Trust that are index ETFs and any additional series
of each Trust, and any other open-end management investment company
or series thereof, that may be created in the future (each, included
in the term ``Fund''), each of which will operate as an ETF and will
track a specified index comprised of domestic or foreign equity and/
or fixed income securities (each, an ``Underlying Index''). Any Fund
will (a) be advised by an Initial Adviser or an entity controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with an Initial Adviser
(each, an ``Adviser'') and (b) comply with the terms and conditions
of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond
generally to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of
Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section
2(a)(3) of the Act (``Affiliated Person''), or an affiliated person of
an Affiliated Person (``Second-Tier Affiliate''), of a Trust or a Fund,
of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the
Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying
Index.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its Web site the
identities and quantities of the investment positions that will form
the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the
day. Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds to
maintain full portfolio transparency will help address, together
with other protections, conflicts of interest with respect to such
Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and
generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption
will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the
application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by
depositing specified instruments (``Deposit Instruments''), and
shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments
(``Redemption Instruments''). The Deposit Instruments and the
Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions
in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified
in the application.
    4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants
request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the
Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management
investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation
Units only.
    5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the
Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares
will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price
described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV.
Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not
involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an
investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist
during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as
a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand.
Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in
shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among
purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will
be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares
from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
    6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of
Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes
that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the
requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to
pay redemption proceeds within fourteen calendar days following the
tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the
requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent
of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen
delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
    7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to
acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the
Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or
any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares
to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other
things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund
through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and
17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or
Second Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain
ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind.
The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the
redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be
the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments

and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those
investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek
relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section
17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from
a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions
with the Fund of Funds.\3\ The purchase of Creation Units by a Fund of
Funds directly from a Fund will be accomplished in accordance with the
policies of the Fund of Funds and will be based on the NAVs of the
Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requested relief would apply to direct sales of shares
in Creation Units by a Fund to a Fund of Funds and redemptions of
those shares. Applicants, moreover, are not seeking relief from
section 17(a) for, and the requested relief will not apply to,
transactions where a Fund could be deemed an Affiliated Person, or a
Second-Tier Affiliate, of a Fund of Funds because an Adviser or an
entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with an
Adviser provides investment advisory services to that Fund of Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to
acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the
Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the
Feeder Fund (``Master Fund'') beyond the limitations in section
12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter
for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder
Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).
    10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order
permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it
finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and
reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person
concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies
of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15919 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 13377-13378]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

March 8, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER06-274-001.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Southwestern Public Service Co. submits a compliance
filing pursuant to FERC's January 31, 2006. Suspension Order re: filing
rates within 30 days to correct the clerical and program errors, etc.
    Filed Date: March 2, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060306-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 23, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-315-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp., agent for Ohio
Power Co. et al. submits & requests a second revision to the
Interconnection & Local Delivery Agreement made pursuant to AEP's OATT
with Buckey Power.
    Filed Date: February 17, 2006.

    Accession Number: 20060223-0051.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-475-001.
    Applicants: Colorado Power Partners.
    Description: Colorado Power Partners submits Substitute Third
Revised Sheet 1, revising Third Revised Sheet 1, to be effective
January 12, 2006.
    Filed Date: March 3, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060307-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 24, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-693-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits an executed
Letter of Agreement dated March 31, 1998 with California Department of
Water Resources--State Water Project in accordance with section 205(c)
of the Federal Power Act, etc.
    Filed Date: March 2, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060307-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 23, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-694-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. dba National Grid submits
an Original Service Agreement 914 with Steel Winds, LLC under the New
York Independent System Operator, LLC, FERC Electric Tariff, Original
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: March 2, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060307-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 23, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-695-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., dba National Grid submits
an Original Service Agreement 915 with Modern Innovative Energy LLC
under the New York Independent System Operator LLC's open access
tariff, etc.
    Filed Date: March 2, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060307-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 23, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-696-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. dba National Grid submits
an Original Service Agreement 916 w/Innovative Energy Systems, Inc.
under the New York Independent System Operator, LLC's FERC Electric
Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: March 2, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060307-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 23, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-698-000.
    Applicants: First Commodities Ltd.
    Description: First Commodities Ltd.'s submits a petition for
acceptance of its initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Rate Schedule
1), and granting certain waivers and blanket authorities.
    Filed Date: March 2, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060307-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 23, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-2495-028; ER97-4143-016; ER97-1238-023; ER98-
2075-022; ER98-542-018; EL04-131-000.
    Applicants: AEP Power Marketing Inc.; AEP Service Corporation; CSW
Power Marketing, Inc.; CSW Energy Services, Inc.; Central and South
West Services, Inc.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp., on behalf of
AEP Power Marketing Inc. et al. submits revised market tariff sheets in
accordance with Order 614 to remove the Market Behavior Rules pursuant
to Commission's February 16, 2006 order.
    Filed Date: March 3, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060307-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 24, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER97-886-009.
    Applicants: Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, LP
    Description: Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners LP states
that neither itself nor its affiliates can engage in any prohibited
affiliate abuse or reciprocal dealing in response to FERC's letter
dated February 1, 2006.
    Filed Date: March 3, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060307-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 24, 2006.

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

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3688 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Page 1 of 11 Memorandum From: Carey A. Johnston USEPA/ OW/ OST ph: ( 202) 260 7186 johnston. carey@ epa. gov To: File Date: June 14, 2001 Re: Comparison of Meat Processing and Domestic Wastewaters This memorandum compares the wastewaters of domestic sewage and industrial meat processing operations. The wastewaters are compared in terms of various chemical parameters.

I. Domestic Wastewaters Nitrogen in untreated wastewater is principally in the form of ammonia or organic nitrogen and rarely in the form of nitrite or nitrate ( Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991). Randall and Mitta ( 1998) report a typical municipal wastewater BOD to TKN ratio of 10 to 1. Phosphorus in domestic wastewater is almost entirely in a soluble form after primary settling. The usual forms of soluble phosphorus include the orthophosphate, polyphosphate, and organic phosphate. Page 2 of 11 Table 1: Typical Composition of Untreated Domestic Wastewater Parameter Wastewater Strength ( mg/ L)

Weak Medium Strong Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) 100 220 350 Biochemical Oxygen Demand ( BOD 5 ) 110 220 400 Total Organic Carbon ( TOC) 80 160 290 Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD) 250 500 1000 Total Nitrogen ( TN) 20 40 85 Organic Nitrogen 8 15 35 Free Ammonia 12 25 50 Total Phosphorus ( TP) 4 8 15 Alkalinity ( as CaCO 3 ) 50 100 200 Grease 50 100 150 Total Coliform ( no./ 100mL) 106 107 107 108 108 109 Source: Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991.

II. Meat Processing Wastewater Industrial practices within the meat processing industry are diverse and produce variable waste loads. Meat processing wastewaters are organic and biodegradable. EPA identified the 5 day biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD 5 ) as the basis for categorizing poultry, red meat, and rending segments of the industry. Gorgun et al. ( 1995) identified typical raw wastewater COD strengths for the meat packing industry above 1,500 mg/ L. Eckenfelder ( 1999) identified raw wastewater BOD 5 strengths for the meat packing industry ranging from 1,110 mg/ L to 2,000 mg/ L and also observed the following variations in slaughterhouse wastes. Page 3 of 11 Table 2: Variation in Flow and Waste Characteristics for Slaughterhouse Wastes Percentile Flow ( L/ kkg LWK) BOD5 ( kg/ kkg LWK) TSS ( kg/ kkg LWK)

10 1,265 3.8 3.0 50 6,676 13.0 9.8 90 35,885 44 31.0 Source: Modified from Eckenfelder, 1989.

Randall et al. ( 1999) surveyed 51 wastewater treatment plants ( WWTPs) including one poultry processor. The poultry processor, Rocco Farm Foods, is located in Edinburg, VA, and treats approximately 1.2 MGD of wastewater. Currently the wastewater contains 34.6 mg/ L ammonia, 140 mg/ L TKN, and 35 mg/ L phosphorus. The authors identified that the BOD to TKN ratio in the influent to the activated sludge basin is approximately 1.5 to 1, which is not adequate to accomplish denitrification to meet the TN effluent limit of 8 mg/ L. To improved nitrification/ denitrification, the authors recommend modifying the activated sludge treatment system to include an upstream anoxic tank with a methanol feed system to address the BOD deficiency.

EPA conducted numerous surveys in the 1970s to characterize raw wastewaters from the meat processing industry ( EPA, 1974; EPA, 1975a; EPA, 1975b). The summary results of these surveys are presented below. Page 4 of 11 Table 3: Variation in Flow and Waste Characteristics for Red Meat Processing Wastewaters Meat Processing Subcategory Raw Waste Characteristics Flow L/ kkg LWK Kill kkg LWK/ day BOD5 kg/ kkg LWK Suspended Solids kg/ kkg LWK Grease kg/ kkg LWK TKN kg/ kkg LWK TP kg/ kkg LWK Red Meat Simple Slaughterhouse ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 24) 5,328 1,334 14,641 ( 24)

220 18.5 552 ( 24)

6.0 1.5 14.3 ( 22)

5.6 0.6 12.9 ( 12)

2.1 0.24 7.0 ( 5) 0.68 0.23 1.36 ( 5) 0.05 0.014 0.086 Red Meat Complex Slaughterhouse ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 19) 7,379 3,627 12,507 ( 19)

595 154 1,498 ( 19) 10.9 5.4 18.8 ( 16)

9.6 2.8 20.5 ( 11)

5.9 0.7 16.8 ( 12) 0.84 0.13 2.1 ( 5) 0.33 0.05 1.2 Red Meat Complex Low Processing Packinghouse ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 23) 7,842 2,018 17,000 ( 23)

435 59 1,394 ( 20)

8.1 2.3 18.4 ( 22)

5.9 0.6 13.9 ( 15)

3.0 0.8 7.7 ( 6) 0.53 0.04 1.3 ( 4) 0.13 0.03 0.43 Page 5 of 11 Red Meat Complex High Processing Packinghouse ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 19) 12,514 5,444 20,261 ( 19)

350 8.8 1,233 ( 19) 16.1 6.2 30.5 ( 14) 10.5 1.7 22.5 ( 10)

9.0 2.8 27.0 ( 3) 1.3 0.65 2.7 ( 3) 0.38 0.2 0.63 Source: EPA, 1974.

Table 4: Variation in Flow and Waste Characteristics for Poultry Meat Processing Wastewaters Meat Processing Subcategory Raw Waste Characteristics Production birds/ day Ave. Live Weight kg/ bird Flow L/ bird BOD5 kg/ kkg LWK Suspended Solids kg/ kkg LWK Grease kg/ kkg LWK TKN kg/ kkg LWK TP kg/ kkg LWK Chicken Processors ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 90) 73,000 15,000 220,000 ( 90) 1.74 1.45 1.97 ( 88) 34.4 15.9 87.0 ( 60) 9.89 3.26 19.86 ( 53) 6.91 0.13 22.09 ( 39) 4.21 0.12 14.03 ( 15) 1.84 0.15 12.16 ( 22) 0.39 0.054 2.46 Turkey Processors ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 34) 12,100 2,000 20,000 ( 34)

8.3 4.1 11.4 ( 34) 118.2 36.3 270.2 ( 15) 4.94 09.6 9.1 ( 13) 3.17 0.57 10.89 ( 10) 0.89 0.34 1.81 ( 5) 0.94 0.38 1.89 ( 4) 0.098 0.034 0.18 Fowl Processors ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 8) 34,100 11,900 70,000 ( 8) 2.3 1.6 4.1 ( 8) 48.9 11.0 159.0 ( 4) 15.20 11.78 23.14 ( 4) 10.09 6.11 14.94 ( 3) 2.32 0.72 3.32 ( 1) 0.28  ( 2) 0.29 0.27 0.31 Page 6 of 11 Duck Processors ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 5) 6,600 1,900 15,000 ( 5) 2.9 2.0 3.2 ( 2) 74.9 71.5 78.3 ( 2) 7.06 6.59 7.52 ( 2) 4.36 3.47 5.24 ( 2) 1.86 0.66 3.05 ( 2) 1.40 0.80 2.00 ( 2) 0.084 0.073 0.096 Further Processing Only ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high kg/ day FP ( 4) 36,700 11,400 77,600    L/ kg FP ( 4) 12.5 2.92 21.34 kg/ kkg FP ( 3) 19.03 16.71 22.11 kg/ kkg FP ( 3) 9.06 2.92 14.64 kg/ kkg FP ( 3) 6.36 4.83 7.89 kg/ kkg FP ( 1) 2.04  kg/ kkg FP ( 1) 0.12

Source: EPA, 1975a. Page 7 of 11 Table 5: Variation in Flow and Waste Characteristics for Rendering Processing Wastewaters Meat Processing Subcategory Raw Waste Characteristics Flow L/ kkg RM Production Raw Material kkg RM/ day BOD5 kg/ kkg RM Suspended Solids kg/ kkg RM Grease kg/ kkg RM TKN kg/ kkg RM TP kg/ kkg RM Rendering ( No. of Observations)

Average Range, low high ( 47) 3,261 467 20,000 ( 48)

94 3.6 390 ( 29) 2.15 0.10 5.83 ( 26) 1.13 0.03 5.18 ( 18) 0.72 0.00 4.18 ( 17) 0.476 0.12 1.20 ( 17) 0.044 0.003 0.280 Source: EPA, 1974b. Page 8 of 11 III. Comparisons of Domestic and Meat Processing Wastewaters A. Wastewater Strength Meat processing facilities often utilize municipal wastewater treatment due to the general compatibility of meat processing and domestic wastewaters ( Rossi et al., 1980). However, meat processing wastewaters have significantly stronger COD and BOD 5 loadings than typical domestic wastewaters ( 3 20 times). The acceptable concentration of pollutants from a meat processing facility to a POTW is dependent on the relative sizes of the POTW and the effluent volume from the meat processing facility.

It is possible that high organic loadings and grease remaining in the plant effluent may cause difficulty in the POTW treatment system; trickling filters appear to be particularly sensitive ( Rossi et al., 1980). A concentration of 100 mg/ L is often cited as a limit, and this may require an effective dissolve air floatation device in addition to a catch basin and other primary treatment system ( EPA, 1975a; 1975b).

B. Biological Nutrient Removal Despite the higher BOD 5 loadings, meat processing wastewaters may have insufficient organic carbon sources for efficient biological nutrient removal ( especially denitrification). Meat processing wastewater can have BOD: TKN ratios 7 to 10 times less than typical municipal wastewaters ( Randall and Mitta, 1998).

It is important to note the mechanics of biological nutrient removal ( BNR) for wastewater treatment. BNR wastewater treatment systems primarily focus on the removal of phosphorus ( P) and nitrogen ( N). A number of biological processes have been developed for the combined removal of nitrogren and phosphorus ( e. g., Modified Ludzack Ettinger Process, Bardenpho Process, A2O). Many of these use a form of activated sludge process and employ combinations of anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones or compartments to accomplish nitrogen and phosphorus removal ( Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991). Abufayed and Shroeder ( 1986a) report that biological denitrification is the most reliable and cost effective process for nitrate removal from wastewater.

Nitrogen removal ( denitrification) will generally occur any time the oxygen concentration is low, the nitrate concentration is high, and the organic matter is present as an electron donor. The anoxic growth of heterotrophic bacteria is simply an alternative mode of growth in response to the absence of oxygen and the presence of nitrate as the terminal electron acceptor. It is common practice to add an organic substrate ( e. g., methanol) in slight excess of the amount required to remove the nitrate, and then to pass the effluent from the anoxic reactor through a small aerobic reactor in which any residual electron donor can be removed with oxygen as the electron acceptor. Alternatively, small amounts of raw waste water can be directed to the denitrification system to supply needed carbon ( Randall and Mitta, 1998). Abufayed and Schroeder ( 1986b) report that primary sludge is an excellent internal organic carbon source for the removal of nitrates and nitrites from wastewater. Obayashi ( 1985) reports the minimum P: N: C Page 9 of 11 ratio for growth in anaerobic digestion treatment, which is necessary for denitrifiation, is approximately 1: 6: 100. Grady and Daigger ( 1992) suggest a N: C ratio of 1: 3 for removal of carbon and nitrogen in a continuously stirred tank reactor ( CSTR) under anoxic conditions. Abufayed and Schroeder ( 1986b) report excellent nitrite removals at nitrite to COD ratios ( NO 2  N: COD) as low as 1: 2.5 and total oxidized nitrogen removals occurred with an applied NO 3  N: COD greater than 1: 7. Additionally, increasing the solids retention time for a denitrification system will decrease the amount of carbon ( electron donor) required for proper nitrogen removal due to the increased cycling of carbon in the system ( due to lysis and regrowth).

C. Wastewater Treatment Finally, it is important to note that many of the same treatment processes for meat processing wastewaters are used for domestic sewage ( e. g., oxidation ditches, activated sludge, dissolved air flotation). Many of the same modification to existing domestic sewage plants for enhancing BNR can be used for meat processing wastewater treatment operations ( see Randall and Mitta, 1998; Randall et al., 1999). In part this is likely due to the fact that meat processing wastewaters exhibit characteristics quite compatible with domestic sewage, as far as coefficients ( e. g., yield coefficient, maximum specific growth rate, half saturation constant) related to microbial growth ( Eremektar et al., 1999; Gorgun et al., 1995). Gorgun et al. ( 1995) did report a hydrolysis constant ( K h ) of 1.5 d 1 for a meat processing wastewater sample, a value significantly lower than the wide range of 5 50 d 1 commonly associated with domestic sewage. The lower hydrolysis constant dictates a higher solids retention time for adequate effluent quality due to the rate limiting hydrolysis of the slowly biodegradable COD fraction in the meat processing wastewater. A meat processing treatment system may likely require a higher solids retention time than a domestic wastewater treatment system to compensate for the different P: N: C ratio and hydrolysis constant. Page 10 of 11 References Abufayed, A. A., E. D. Schroeder, 1986a. Kinetics and stoichiometry of SBF/ denitrification with a primary sludge carbon source, J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 58: 398 405.

Abufayed, A. A., E. D. Schroeder, 1986b. Performance of SBR/ denitrification with a primary sludge carbon source, J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 58: 387 397.

Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, 1989. Industrial Water Pollution Control, 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill Inc.

Eremektar, G., E. Ubay Cokgor, S. Ovez, F. Germirli Babuna, and D. Orhon, 1999. Biological Treatability of Poultry Processing Plant Effluent  A Case Study, Water Science and Technology, Volume 40, Number 1.

Gorgun, E. E. Ubay Cokgor, D. Orhon, F. Germirli, and N. Artan, 1995. Modeling biological treatability for meat processing effluent, Wat. Sci. Tech. 32 ( 12), 43 52.

Grady Jr., C. P. Leslie, and Glen T. Daigger, 1992. Biological Wastewater Treatment: Theory and Application, 2nd Edition, Virginia Tech.

Obayashi, Alan W., 1985. Management of Industrial Pollutants by Anaerobic Processes, Lewis Publishers, Inc.

Randall, Clifford W., Zeynep Kisoglu, Dipankar Sen, Pramod Mitta, Ufuk Erdal, 1999. Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plants for BNR Retrofits Using Advances in Technology, Submission to the Point Source Workgroup, Chesapeake Bay Program, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

Randall, Clifford W., Pramod Mitta, 1998. Preliminary Assessment of the Rocco Farm Foods Wastewater Treatment Plant, Edinburg, VA, for Biological Nutrient Removal, Submission to the U. S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Office and the Virginia Department of Environmental, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

Rossi, Daniel, C. Edwin Young, Donald J. Epp, 1980. Joint Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment in Rural Communities: Simulation Analysis with Poultry Processing Plants, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1615.

Tchobanoglous, George, Franklin L. Burton, 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse, 3rd Edition, Metcalf and Eddy Inc., McGraw Hill Inc.

U. S. EPA, 1974. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Red Meat Processing Segment of the Meat Product and Rendering Processing Point Source Category, EPA 440/ 1 74 012a.

U. S. EPA, 1975a. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Page 11 of 11 Performance Standards for the Renderer Segment of the Meat Products and Rendering Processing Point Source Category, EPA 440/ 1 74 031d.

U. S. EPA, 1975b. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Poultry Segment of the Meat Product and Rendering Process Point Source Category, EPA 440/ 1 75 031b.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57836-57838]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20137]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0943; FRL-9372-02-R9]

Air Plan Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval; California;
South Coast Air Quality Management District; Refinery Flares

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) from refinery flares. Under the authority of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves a local
rule that regulates these emission sources and directs California to
correct rule deficiencies.

DATES: This rule will be effective on October 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0943. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donnique Sherman, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On March 25, 2022 (87 FR 17060), the EPA proposed a limited
approval and limited disapproval of the following rule that was
submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD................................            1118  Control of Emissions          07/07/2017      02/16/2018
                                                         from Refinery Flares.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SC Rule 1118 is designed to decrease volatile organic compound
(VOC), sulfur oxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions from industries such
as petroleum refineries, sulfur recovery plants, and hydrogen
production plants. The revisions to this rule include adoption of the
requirements for refinery flares from the final rule of the

2015 EPA Refinery Rule, updated emission factors based on AP-42
guidance, and clarified reporting requirements.
    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that this rule
improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because
Rule 1118 Section (j) does not satisfy the requirements of CAA section
110 and part D of the Act. As described in our proposal, documents
submitted for inclusion into the SIP should not include unbounded
director's discretion that allows the State to approve alternatives to
the applicable SIP without following the SIP revision process described
in CAA section 110. Rule 1118 Section (j) provides the Executive
Officer the authority to approve other American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) methods other than those currently included in the
rule. Without further specificity regarding how this authority will be
exercised, it could functionally allow for a revision of the SIP
without complying with the process for SIP revisions required by the
CAA. As a result, this undermines the enforceability of the submission,
constitutes a SIP deficiency, and conflicts with CAA Section 110.
    Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is finalizing a limited
approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted
rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as
deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is
simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of SCAQMD Rule 1118.
    As a result, the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan
(FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions
that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. In addition, the
offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed 18 months
after the effective date of this action, and the highway funding
sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset sanction
is imposed. A sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a
subsequent SIP submission corrects the identified deficiencies before
the applicable deadlines.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of South
Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1118 as described in Section
I of this preamble and set for below in the amendments to 40 CFR part
52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The state did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
indigenous peoples.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 21, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: September 12, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(347)(i)(B)(3) and
(c)(586) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan-in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (347) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (3) Previously approved on August 28, 2007, in paragraph
(c)(347)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(586)(i)(A)(1) of this section, Rule 1118 adopted February
13, 1998, and amended November 4, 2005.
* * * * *
    (586) An amended regulation for the following agency was submitted
on February 16, 2018, by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a
letter dated February 7, 2018.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
    (1) Rule 1118, ``Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares,''
amended on July 7, 2017.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2022-20137 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76610-76611]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: December 19, 2013, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda
    * Note--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For a recorded message listing items struck
from or added to the meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

     1000th-Meeting, Regular Meeting, December 19, 2013, 10:00 a.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Item No.              Docket No.                  Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ADMINISTRATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.................  AD02-1-000............  Agency Business Matters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-2.................  AD02-7-000............  Customer Matters,
                                               Reliability, Security and
                                               Market Operations.
A-3.................  AD14-4-000............  FERC Retrospective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ELECTRIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.................  ER13-1724-000, ER13-    Nevada Power Company.
                       1860-000.
E-2.................  ER13-83-001, ER13-83-   Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
                       002, ER13-88-001,       and Carolina Power and
                       ER13-88-002.            Light Company, Alcoa
                                               Power Generating, Inc.
E-3.................  AD12-16-000...........  Capacity Deliverability
                                               Across the Midwest
                                               Independent Transmission
                                               System Operator, Inc./PJM
                                               Interconnection, L.L.C.
                                               Seam.
                       AD14-3-000...........  Coordination of Energy and
                                               Capacity Across the
                                               Midcontinent Independent
                                               System Operator, Inc./PJM
                                               Interconnection, L.L.C
                                               Seam.
E-4.................  RM13-7-000............  Protection System
                                               Maintenance Reliability
                                               Standard.
E-5.................  OMITTED...............
E-6.................  ER13-2468-000.........  Midcontinent Independent
                                               System Operator, Inc.
E-7.................  ER14-106-000, ER14-106- Midcontinent Independent
                       001.                    System Operator, Inc.
E-8.................  ER14-146-000..........  Nevada Power Company.
                      ER14-147-000..........  Sierra Pacific Power
                                               Company.
                      ER14-149-000..........  NV Energy, Inc.
E-9.................  ER14-108-000..........  Entergy Louisiana, LLC,
                                               Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,
                                               Entergy Gulf States
                                               Louisiana, L.L.C.,
                                               Entergy Mississippi,
                                               Inc., Entergy New
                                               Orleans, Inc., Entergy
                                               Texas, Inc.
E-10................  ER02-653-002..........  PacifiCorp.
E-11................  OMITTED...............
E-12................  ER13-2452-000.........  California Independent
                                               System Operator
                                               Corporation.
E-13................  ER14-291-000..........  California Independent
                                               System Operator
                                               Corporation.
E-14................  ER14-68-000...........  California Independent
                                               System Operator
                                               Corporation.
E-15................  ER14-84-000...........  California Independent
                                               System Operator
                                               Corporation.
E-16................  ER11-3277-002, ER13-    Sky River LLC.
                       2273-000.
E-17................  ER12-2706-002.........  Midwest Independent
                                               Transmission System
                                               Operator, Inc.
E-18................  ER12-309-005..........  Midwest Independent
                                               Transmission System
                                               Operator, Inc.
E-19................  ER12-2706-001.........  Midwest Independent
                                               Transmission System
                                               Operator, Inc.
E-20................  ER14-90-000...........  ISO New England Inc.
E-21................  OMITTED...............
E-22................  EL13-54-000, QF11-141-  Gadwall Wind LLC.
                       002.
E-23................  EL14-1-000............  Pioneer Wind Park I, LLC.
E-24................  EL13-42-001...........  Cargill Power Markets, LLC
                                               v. NV Energy, Inc.
E-25................  EL13-88-000...........  Northern Indiana Public
                                               Service Company v.
                                               Midcontinent Independent
                                               System Operator, Inc. and
                                               PJM Interconnection,
                                               L.L.C.
E-26................  OMITTED...............
E-27................  EL13-59-001, QF11-178-  Kootenai Electric
                       003.                    Cooperative, Inc.
E-28................  ER13-911-000..........  Smoky Mountain
                                               Transmission LLC.
E-29................  ER13-76-000, ER13-1837- Terra-Gen Dixie Valley,
                       000.                    LLC.
E-30................  ER13-109-000, ER13-110- Peetz Logan Interconnect,
                       000, ER13-111-000.      LLC, Sagebrush, a
                                               California partnership,
                                               Sky River LLC.
E-31................  RC13-4-001............  South Louisiana Electric
                                               Cooperative Association.
E-32................  EC13-128-000..........  Silver Merger Sub, Inc.,
                                               NV Energy, Inc., Nevada
                                               Power Company, Sierra
                                               Pacific Power Company,
                                               MidAmerican Energy
                                               Holding Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   GAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1.................  RP13-1041-000.........  Iroquois Gas Transmission
                                               System, L.P.

G-2.................  RP12-945-001, AC13-112- High Point Gas
                       000.                    Transmission, LLC.
G-3.................  RP13-185-000..........  Viking Gas Transmission
                                               Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  HYDRO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.................  P-13579-002, P-14491-   FFP Qualified Hydro 14,
                       000.                    LLC, Western Minnesota
                                               Municipal Power Agency.
H-2.................  P-2146-139............  Alabama Power Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              CERTIFICATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.................  CP13-477-000..........  Columbia Gas Transmission,
                                               LLC.
C-2.................  CP13-91-000, CP13-92-   Gulf South Pipeline
                       000, CP13-93-000.       Company, LP.
C-3.................  CP12-497-001..........  Transcontinental Gas Pipe
                                               Line Company, LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued December 12, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.

    A free Webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar.
    The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol
Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also
offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2013-30158 Filed 12-16-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P