[Federal Register: August 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 47638-47639]
[DOCID:fr14au08-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2008-0182]

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU);
Notice of Request for Renewal of Data Collection by the Office of Small
and Disadvantaged Business Utilization's (OSDBU) Regional Small
Business Transportation Resource Centers (SBTRCs)

Notice of Correction

    This Notice of Correction announces cancellation of the published
30-day notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 45092-45093) on August 1,
2008. For this Notice of information collection, refer to the published
60-day notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 36368-36370) on June 26,
2008.
    Agency Information Collection Activities; Request for Comments,
Renewal and Approval of Information Collection(s): Regional Center
Intake Form (DOT F 4500) and Regional Resource Center Monthly Report
Form (DOT F 4502).
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
(OSDBU) invite the public to comment about our intention to request the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew information
collection forms, associated with OSDBU. The collection involves the
use of the Regional Center Intake Form, (DOT F 4500) which documents
the type of assistance provided to each small business that is enrolled
in the program.
    The use of the Regional Resource Center Monthly Report Form, (DOT F
4502) will highlight activities, such as counseling, marketing,
meetings/conferences, and services to businesses as completed during
the month. The information will be used to ascertain whether the
program is providing services to its constituency, the small business
community, in a fair and equitable manner. The information collected is
necessary to determine whether small businesses are participating in
DOT funded and DOT assisted opportunities with the DOT.
    The Counseling Information Form, (DOT F 4640.1) has been eliminated
and the information contained in that form is now consolidated into the
Regional Resource Center Monthly Report Form (formerly titled Monthly
Report of Operations Form). To eliminate duplication and to streamline
the data collection process, OSDBU revised the Monthly Report of
Operations Form into the Regional Resource Center Monthly Report Form.
    We are required to publish this notice in the Federal Register by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On June 26, 2008, OSDBU published
a 60-day notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 36368) Docket
OST-2008-0182, informing the public of OSDBU's intention to extend an
approved information collection.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by: September 15, 2008 and
submitted to the attention of the DOT/OST Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Docket library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503
or oira--submission @omb.eop.gov (e-mail).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur D. Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER> Office
of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Room W56 462, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU).
    OMB Control No: 2105-0554; Form No.: DOT F 4500, Regional Center
Intake.
    Form and Form No.: DOT F 4502, Regional Resource Center Monthly
Report Form.
    Affected Public: Representatives of DOT Regional Small Business
Transportation Resource Centers and

the Small Businesses community on a national basis.
    Type of Review: Clearance and Renewal.
    Abstract: In accordance with Public Law 95-507, an amendment to the
Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1953, OSDBU
is responsible for the implementation and execution of the Department
of Transportation (DOT) activities on behalf of small businesses, in
accordance with Section 8, 15 and 31 of the Small Business Act (SBA),
as amended. The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
also administers the provisions of Title 49, of the United States Code,
Section 332, the Minority Resource Center (MRC) which includes the
duties of advocacy, outreach and financial services on behalf of small
and disadvantaged business businesses and those certified under CFR 49
parts 23 and or 26 as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). The
Small Business Transportation Resource Regional Centers will collect
information on small businesses, which includes Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE), Women-Owned Small Business (WOB), Small Disadvantaged
Business (SDB), 8(a), Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB),
Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB), HubZone, and types of services
they seek from the SBTRCs. Services and responsibilities of the SBTRCs
include business analysis, general management & technical assistance
and training, business counseling, outreach services/conference
participation, short-term loan assistance. The cumulative data
collected will be analyzed by the OSDBU to determine the effectiveness
of services provided, including counseling, outreach, and financial
services. Such data will also be analyzed by the OSDBU to determine
agency effectiveness in assisting small businesses to enhance their
opportunities to participate in government contracts and subcontracts.
    The Regional Center Intake Form, (DOT F 4500) is used by the
Regional SBTRC staff to enroll small business clients into the program
in order to create a viable database of firms that can participate in
government contracts and subcontracts, especially those projects that
are transportation related. In addition, each enrolled small business
will be assigned a client number that can track the firm's involvement
in the services offered by the SBTRCs. Each area on the form must be
filled in electronically by the SBTRCs and retained in secured files of
the client. The completion of the form is used as a tool for making
decisions about the needs of the business, such as; referral to
technical assistance agencies for help, identifying the type of
profession or trade of the business, the type of certification that the
business holds, length of time in business, and location of the firm.
    The SBTRCs must complete an Intake Form and retain copies in
secured files in their offices. A limited amount of privacy information
is requested on this form. We have informed the public that the Privacy
Act is stated on the form. Under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552) any
person can request to see or get copies of any personal information
that DOT has in his or her file, when that file is retrievable by
individual identifiers, such as name or Social Security Numbers.
Request for information about another party may be denied unless DOT
has the written permission of the individual to release the information
to the requestor or unless the information is subject to disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act. This can assist the SBTRCs in
developing a business plan or adjusting their business plan to increase
its ability to market its goods and services to buyers and potential
users of their services.
    Respondents: Small Business Transportation Resource Centers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.
    Frequency: The information will be collected monthly.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 600 hours.
    The Regional Resource Center Monthly Report Form (DOT F 4502) for
each SBTRC must submit a monthly status report of business activities
conducted during the 30 day time frame. The form is used to capture
activities and accomplishments that were made by the Regional SBTRCs
during the course of the month. In addition, the form includes a data
collection section where numbers and hours are reported and a section
that is assigned for a written narrative that provides back up that
supports the data.
    Activities to be reported are (1) Counseling Activity which
identifies the counseling hours provided to businesses, number of new
appointments, and follow-up on counseled clients. (2) Activity for
Businesses Served identifies the type of small business that is helped,
such as a DBE, 8(a), WOB, HubZone, SDB, SDVOB, or VOSB. (3) Marketing
Activity includes the name of an event attended by the SBTRC and the
role played when participating in a conference, workshop or any other
venue that relates to small businesses. (4) Meetings that are held with
government representatives in the region, or at the state level, are an
activity that is reported. (5) Events Hosted by the SBTRCs, such as
small business workshops, financial assistance workshops, matchmaking
events, are activities that are reported on a monthly basis.
    Respondents: Small Business Transportation Resource Centers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.
    Frequency: The information will be collected monthly.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 1200 hours.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Departments estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, by
the use of electronic means, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 8, 2008.
Patricia Lawton,
DOT Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-18841 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20380]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1355-000]

Iron Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Iron Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 17, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8031 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA  94105

October 2020

Memorandum

Subject:Response to Comments Document for the EPA's Final Actions on the "Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision: Hayden Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS" and Rule R18-2-B1302, "Limits on SO2 Emissions from the Hayden Smelter"

From:Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office, Air and Radiation Division   Kevin Gong, Rules Office, Air and Radiation Division

To: Docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0109 Docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0173

On May 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove an Arizona state implementation plan (SIP) revision for attaining the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Hayden SO2 nonattainment area (Hayden SO2 Plan), and proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the Asarco-Hayden SO2 smelter rule (Arizona Rule R18-2-B1302, "Rule B1302"). The EPA's proposed actions provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from ADEQ, ASARCO LLC ("Asarco"), and Freeport-McMoRan Incorporated (FMI).,, The comments from FMI pertain to Rule B1302 and the comments from ADEQ and Asarco pertain primarily to our proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of the Hayden SO2 Plan. Summaries of all comments and the EPA's responses are included below.

Comments from ADEQ

Comment: ADEQ's comment letter expresses concern that the EPA's proposed action does not clearly acknowledge the work that ADEQ and Asarco have completed since identifying the modeling error that was part of the basis for the EPA's proposed disapproval of the modeled attainment demonstration and related elements. ADEQ describes the modeling error that was discovered in 2017 after the SIP revision was submitted to the EPA and discusses the extensive work that was conducted to develop a revised modeling methodology. These efforts include additional analyses, work to justify new assumptions and modeling parameters, and the development of new modeling files and a modeling technical support document (TSD), draft versions of which were shared with EPA staff for review. ADEQ does not dispute the modeling error and acknowledges that the EPA was required to take action on the SIP revision submitted in March 2017. However, ADEQ expresses concern that the language in the EPA's proposal could lead the reader to believe that it knowingly submitted a SIP revision containing a flawed attainment demonstration, that the error was a recent discovery, or that it has taken no action to resolve the modeling issue. ADEQ contends that a clarification regarding the additional modeling efforts would help avoid any misunderstanding. Finally, ADEQ asserts that the new modeling methodology shows attainment of the NAAQS and that it was approved by the EPA in 2018.

Response: We agree that extensive work has been done by ADEQ and Asarco, in consultation with EPA staff, to correct the flawed modeling in the March 2017 submittal. While we noted in our proposal that ADEQ has been working with Asarco and the EPA on revised modeling, we acknowledge that the high level of effort that has gone into that work was not clearly presented in our proposed action and the sequence of ADEQ submitting the SIP revision in March 2017, identifying the error later in 2017, and subsequently working extensively with Asarco and the EPA to correct the error was not discussed.

In response to the statement that the new methodology was approved by the EPA in 2018, we would like to clarify that, while ADEQ and Asarco consulted with EPA staff to revise the modeling, and has shared new modeling files and a modeling TSD with EPA staff, these documents have not undergone ADEQ public notice and comment or been formally submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, the revised modeling has not been formally approved by the EPA and was not evaluated as part of our proposed action. Only upon such future submission, if it occurs, will the EPA be able to formally evaluate and make a determination regarding its adequacy to demonstrate attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Comments from Asarco

Comment: Asarco notes that it has spent considerable time and resources since 2011, in collaboration with ADEQ and the EPA, to achieve attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the Hayden NAA. The commenter states that Asarco's efforts, including improvements to the capture and control systems, retrofits and rebalancing of the converter aisle to enhance sulfur recovery at the acid plant, and installation of an improved preheater system to reduce startup emissions, have resulted in SO2 emission reductions of approximately 90 percent relative to pre-2010 levels.

Response: The EPA acknowledges the efforts that Asarco has undertaken to reduce SO2 emissions and improve air quality in the Hayden SO2 NAA. A summary of the equipment and process upgrades that have been implemented was included in our proposed action, and a more detailed discussion was included in the TSD accompanying our proposed action on Rule B1302.

Comment: Asarco asserts that the statement in the EPA's proposal that an error in ADEQ's modeling "changed predicted SO2 concentrations such that the modeling no longer shows attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS" is disingenuous because ADEQ's revised modeling demonstration shows attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Asarco believes that the accompanying footnote in the proposed action suggests that the modeling error was discovered in 2020, rather than in 2017, and suggests that the EPA should have acknowledged that ADEQ's revised modeling shows attainment even if the EPA felt compelled to act only on the submitted version of the plan. Response: As discussed in our response to ADEQ's comments in Section II.A of this notice, the EPA does not dispute that the modeling error was discovered in 2017. We referenced the 2020 email in our proposed action because we did not have contemporaneous documentation of the discovery of the modeling error to cite in our proposal. We did not intend for our proposal to suggest that the modeling error was identified in 2020 and acknowledge the extensive work that has been done by ADEQ and Asarco to revise the modeling in the March 2017 SIP revision.

We also note that ADEQ and Asarco have informally sent draft revised modeling to EPA staff, who have provided feedback on the draft revised modeling. However, as previously noted, ADEQ has not yet released the revised modeling for public notice and comment or formally submitted the modeling to the EPA as a SIP revision. Accordingly, the EPA has not yet reviewed the revised modeling for approvability under the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations.

Comment: Asarco asserts that under CAA section 172(c)(6), "other control measures, means or techniques" may be sufficient to achieve and demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS, and therefore, it does not agree that the Hayden SO2 Plan cannot be approved without numeric fugitive emissions limits. Asarco contends that the EPA improperly relied upon selective citation of the CAA and EPA regulations and non-binding guidance to conclude that a numeric fugitive emissions limit is required. Asarco lists the "other control measures, means or techniques" provided for in the Hayden SO2 Plan, which it asserts are sufficient "to achieve and demonstrate attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS," including new and upgraded capture and control equipment, operation and maintenance plans for process and control equipment, numeric emissions limits on the main stack, a new preheater system to reduce startup emissions, work practice controls for fugitive emissions, and fugitive emissions studies to evaluate the efficacy of the improved gas capture and control equipment.

Response: We disagree with this comment. Section 172(c)(6) of the CAA requires attainment plans to include "enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques" as necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment. The guidance documents we cited in our proposal (i.e., the General Preamble and the 2014 SO2 Guidance) describe and interpret CAA section 172(c)(6) and other binding statutory and regulatory requirements. While the guidance documents are not themselves binding, they guide the EPA's review of SIP submittals for compliance with the relevant requirements. In any case, the text of section 172(c)(6) is clear that the EPA must determine whether a submitted SIP includes all enforceable emission limitations and other measures that are necessary to provide for attainment. While measures other than emission limits might be sufficient by themselves in some circumstances (for example, where a particular source contributes little to the attainment problem or is not susceptible to a numeric limit due to technological limitations), such circumstances do not exist in this case, given that fugitive SO2 emissions at the Hayden facility have the potential to cause or contribute to NAAQS violations and are capable of being continuously monitored.

The measures listed in Asarco's comment, while important components of the control strategy, do not ensure that fugitive emissions will remain at the level that was assumed in the attainment modeling. In particular, the installation of new and improved capture and control equipment was expected to reduce fugitive emissions, but, in the absence of ongoing monitoring, it is not known whether these changes were sufficient to reduce emissions to the level necessary to achieve attainment. Similarly, operation and maintenance requirements and work practice controls are helpful for ensuring that process and control equipment are properly operated, but they do not correspond to or assure achievement of any particular level of emissions.

The fugitive emissions studies, the first of which began last year, will provide better information regarding the actual level of fugitive emissions from the facility. However, these studies will last for only one year each and do not correspond to any numeric emission limit. Therefore, if one of the studies were to show that fugitive emissions exceeded the levels assumed in the attainment modeling, this would not constitute a violation of an emissions limit that could give rise to an enforcement action. Rather, it would simply trigger a requirement for Asarco to conduct new modeling to assess whether the NAAQS would still be attained at the higher emissions levels. If that modeling shows an increased likelihood of a NAAQS exceedance, then Asarco would have to submit to ADEQ a proposed revision to its operations and maintenance plan and associated modeling to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. ADEQ would then submit revisions to the operational limits and volumetric flow monitoring provisions, and a revised attainment demonstration to the EPA as a SIP revision.

There is substantial risk that fugitive emissions from the facility could cause or contribute to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Consequently, the Plan must assure that these emissions are limited in an enforceable manner. A process for future evaluation of fugitive emissions and potential future SIP revisions contingent on the results of that evaluation cannot substitute for enforceable limitations on fugitive emissions. Moreover, if fugitive emissions were to increase during the period between the two studies or after the second study, there would be no mechanism to address those increased emissions. In contrast, if the Plan were to rely on enforceable numeric fugitive emissions limits corresponding to the modeled fugitive emissions levels, with ongoing monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, then an exceedance of any of these emissions levels would be a violation of the SIP that could result in an immediate enforcement action by ADEQ, the EPA, or a third party. Such an approach would satisfy the requirement of CAA section 172(c)(6) for enforceable limits and other measures that provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Finally, Asarco lists the stack emission limits among the control measures that it believes are sufficient to demonstrate attainment. As discussed in our proposal, the stack emission limits would be enforceable were it not for the flaws in monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In any case, the stack limits have no bearing on the SIP's flaw in not imposing an enforceable limit for fugitive SO2 emissions.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the requirements for enforceable limits and other measures that provide for attainment of the SO2 NAAQS under CAA section 172(c)(6) have not been satisfied.

Comment: Asarco reiterates its view that the EPA's proposal is dismissive of the progress that Asarco has made in reducing total SO2 emissions at the Hayden smelter, and that it implies that fugitive emissions controls at the smelter are inadequate. Asarco cites emissions reductions observed based on the initial data collected during the first fugitive emissions study to assert that fugitive emissions are well below what is needed to ensure attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Response: The EPA acknowledges the progress that has been made to reduce SO2 emissions at the Hayden smelter. As discussed in Asarco's comments and in the TSD accompanying our proposed action on Rule B1302, Asarco's SO2 control strategy includes several equipment and process upgrades, including replacement of the electrostatic precipitator and flash furnace with a new vent gas baghouse system; replacement of five 13-foot diameter converters with new 15-foot diameter units that operate more efficiently; installation of extended secondary and tertiary hooding in the converter aisle to maximize ventilation gas capture during charging, transfer, and tapping operations; and improvements to the acid plant with an upgraded pre-heater system. ADEQ has estimated that the converter retrofit project would reduce SO2 emissions from the smelter by 90 percent between 2011 and 2019.

With regards to the adequacy of the fugitive emissions controls, the EPA disagrees that there are sufficient data to conclude that fugitive emissions are below the level needed to ensure attainment. Asarco references emissions reductions based on initial data collected during the first fugitive emissions study, stating that "[u]nder the Plan, fugitive emissions fall from a maximum annual average of 295 pounds/hour to an average range between 4.3 and 39.8 pounds/hour." However, Asarco has not provided the hourly emissions data from specific roofline sources over an extended period that would be necessary to assess whether the recently monitored levels of fugitive emissions have been consistently at or below the levels necessary for attainment. Moreover, even if recent fugitive emissions have been below the modeled level, there is no assurance that these levels will be maintained over the long-term because, as described in the previous response, the Plan and Rule B1302 do not include any ongoing requirements to measure fugitive emissions or assure that these emissions remain low.

Comment: Regarding the EPA's position that Rule B1302 subsection (E)(4) "provides an option for alternative sampling points that could undermine the enforceability of the stack emission limit by providing undue flexibility to change sampling points without undergoing a SIP revision," the commenter states that the EPA's concern is not justified and lacks merit because the provision requires Asarco to demonstrate to ADEQ's satisfaction that the measurement "would yield inaccurate results or would be technologically infeasible" prior to using an alternative sampling point. Asarco asserts that it would be indefensible for the EPA to require inaccurate results be used to demonstrate attainment. Lastly, Asarco notes that it has recommended that ADEQ withdraw subsection (E)(4) because Asarco and ADEQ have agreed that the monitoring points are yielding acceptable results so this issue should be resolved upon ADEQ's submittal of a revised plan.

Response: The EPA disagrees that this issue lacks merit. The EPA is not suggesting that inaccurate sampling points be required to be used to demonstrate attainment, but rather that any change to sampling points should be the subject of EPA and public review through a SIP revision. As noted in our proposal, one of four basic principles that apply to all SIPs and control strategies is replicability, which means that "where a rule contains procedures for changing the rule, interpreting the rule, or determining compliance with the rule, the procedures are sufficiently specific and non-subjective such that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result." We find that the language in Rule B1302 subsection (E)(4) allowing for "measurement of the flow rate at an alternative sampling point" where the measurement in the outlet of the control equipment "would yield inaccurate results or would be technologically infeasible" is too general and subjective to ensure that two independent entities applying this standard would reach the same conclusion. For example, ADEQ might find that measurement of stack gas volumetric flow rate in the outlet of a particular piece of SO2 control equipment is technologically infeasible in a situation where the EPA might conclude that such measurement is feasible. Moreover, the rule does not specify any procedures or criteria for determining whether measurement at the alternative sampling point would yield accurate and representative results. Therefore, this provision of the rule is inconsistent with the principle of replicability.

As stated in the April 2019 Comment Letter conveying the EPA's comments to ADEQ regarding Rule B1302, the EPA agrees that withdrawal of subsection (E)(4) is appropriate and will resolve this issue, if such withdrawal occurs.

Comment: Asarco objects to the EPA's position that Rule B1302 subsection (E)(6) "allows for nearly 10 percent of total facility SO2 emissions annually to be exempt from continuous emissions monitoring systems; this deficiency could compromise the enforceability of the main stack emission limit." The commenter asserts that there is no deficiency and the basis for disapproval lacks merit because the provision to allow Asarco to petition ADEQ to replace the continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) with annual stack testing and report emissions rates as a pounds per hour (lb/hr) or pounds per ton production factor would still allow calculation of the emissions rates. Asarco states that there were legitimate concerns that it would not be able to perform a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of the CEMS due to the low concentrations of SO2 present, but that it has now determined that it can perform a RATA of the relevant CEMS and has requested that ADEQ withdraw subsection (E)(6) in ADEQ's submittal of a revised plan to resolve this issue.

Response: The EPA disagrees that this issue lacks merit. While the rule language does provide for an emissions value that can allow for the calculation of an overall stack emissions rate, we do not consider this sufficient to ensure the enforceability of the one-hour main stack emissions limit given the large variability in hourly emissions from the Asarco facility. The commenter asserts that units encompassed by the provision typically emit less than 75 lb/hr SO2; however, we note that Asarco's emissions estimate for these units forecasts a maximum emission rate as high as 417 lb/hr SO2 (out of a total 1069.1 lb/hr or 1518 lb/hr main stack limit). In addition, we note that source test results represent a "snapshot" of unit emissions (and of corresponding unit operations) at the time of the source test. Generally, source tests must be performed at approximately 80 to 100 percent of maximum operating levels, and emissions limits relying upon a source test for demonstrating compliance typically require continuous monitoring of one or more parameters of unit operation. This allows for the determination that unit operations are representative of source test conditions and ensures the validity of the source test result. Rule B1302 subsection (E)(6), however, relies solely on source test results for demonstrating compliance, which we do not consider sufficient to ensure enforceability of the main stack emissions limit. As stated in our April 2019 Comment Letter, the EPA agrees that withdrawal of subsection (E)(6) is appropriate and will resolve this issue, if such withdrawal occurs.

Comment: Asarco objects to the EPA's position that Rule B1302 "lacks a method for measuring or calculating emissions from a shutdown ventilation flue; this omission could compromise the enforceability of the main stack emission limit." Asarco asserts that the concern is unfounded and lacks merit. Asarco explains the purpose of the shutdown ventilation flue and describes the procedure for calculating emissions for planned and unplanned shutdowns. Asarco notes that the procedure and resulting values are included in the SIP documentation but that to resolve the issue, it has requested that ADEQ revise the operation and maintenance plan requirements in the SIP to document the SO2 emitted during planned and unplanned use of the shutdown ventilation flue and require the use of the operation and maintenance plan value in compliance calculations.

Response: The EPA disagrees that the concern is unfounded and lacks merit. While the procedure for calculating emissions for planned and unplanned shutdowns and the value are included in supporting documentation for the Plan, they are not included in Rule B1302 or elsewhere in the SIP; therefore, they are not currently enforceable.

Comment: Regarding the EPA's position that Rule B1302 "lacks a method for calculating hourly SO2 emissions," Asarco asserts that the calculation method is presented in subsections (F)(1) and (F)(2) and acknowledges that there was a typographical omission of the "valid hour" definition that was included in Arizona's submission. Asarco notes that it has submitted to ADEQ the same definition included in the EPA-approved plan for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the Miami, Arizona area and that Asarco has requested that ADEQ include it in a revised submittal to resolve the issue.

Response: The omission of the "valid hour" definition leads to ambiguity in how hourly emissions are calculated, thus undermining enforceability. However, the EPA agrees that inclusion of a "valid hour" definition will clarify the method for calculating hourly SO2 emissions for the Hayden facility and will resolve this issue, if submitted to the EPA in a future SIP revision.

Comment: The commenter states that Asarco is disappointed that the EPA has not evaluated a fundamental part of the Hayden SO2 control strategy  -  i.e., the "dual limit." Asarco discusses its rationale for the dual limit, states that there is no basis for the EPA to question it, and states that it is presumptively approvable under the EPA's SO2 Guidance.

Response: As noted in our proposal on Rule B1302, we are approving the main stack emission limit because it is more stringent than the existing requirements in state law, as well as new operational standards and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the smelter.  However, as noted in our proposed action on the Hayden SO2 Plan, we are not evaluating its adequacy to ensure attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS because (1) ADEQ has not demonstrated that the emission limits in Rule B1302 are sufficient to provide for attainment, and (2) the stack emission limit is not fully enforceable due to various deficiencies in Rule B1302.

Comment: Asarco states that it disagrees with the EPA's conclusion that the modeling in the Hayden SO2 Plan is flawed. It notes that the revised modeling that was informally submitted to EPA staff indicates that the Converter Retrofit Project meets the RACM/RACT requirements and that Asarco's understands that the revised modeling will be submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision.

Response: As discussed above, the EPA has not reviewed the revised modeling because, as Asarco acknowledges, it has not been formally submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision. The EPA's proposal to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration is based on the modeling that was submitted as part of the March 2017 SIP submittal. Both ADEQ and Asarco acknowledge the error in the modeling in the March 2017 submittal. The EPA will review any revised modeling upon formal submission of such modeling to the EPA as a SIP revision.

Comment: Asarco states that ADEQ intends to submit a SIP revision that includes updated modeling that shows attainment; removal of Rule B1302, Section (E)(4); removal of Rule B1302, Section (E)(6); a provision in the operation and maintenance plan to demonstrate the quantity of SO2 present during planned and unplanned use of the shutdown ventilation flue; and a "valid hour" definition that is the same as the definition in the approved Miami SO2 SIP. Asarco reiterates its position that the CAA does not require the Hayden SO2 SIP to include numeric fugitive emissions limits but notes that it is working with ADEQ to establish workable emissions limits and monitoring provisions for demonstrating compliance with such limits. Asarco also states that the submission of the SIP revision is imminent and recommends that the EPA prioritize action on the pending revised submittal rather than development of a new plan.

Response: As discussed above, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the CAA does not require enforceable emissions limitations for fugitive emissions. Section 172(c)(6) of the Act requires attainment plans to include "enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques" as necessary and appropriate to provide for attainment. With regards to the SIP revision that ADEQ and Asarco have been working on, the EPA will review the submittal for approvability under the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations once it has undergone ADEQ public notice and comment and been formally submitted to the EPA. While the EPA looks forward to reviewing the prospective submittal, the EPA must also fulfill its obligation under section 110(k) of the CAA to act on ADEQ's 2017 submittal.

Comments from FMI

Comment: FMI commented on transitional provisions in R18-2-715(I), R18-2-715.01(V), and R18-2-715.02(F). The commenter stated that these provisions are intended to clarify the applicability of current SIP-approved rules for the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in both the Hayden and Miami SO2 nonattainment areas, until the effective date of the rules for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

The commenter also noted that, when the EPA approved Arizona's attainment plan and new rules for the Miami SO2 nonattainment area, it did not act on all of the transitional provisions. Accordingly, the commenter explained that there is an inconsistency between the EPA's SIP-approved rules and ADEQ's rules (i.e., a "SIP gap"). Therefore, the Miami copper smelter must comply with both the old SIP rules for attaining the 1971 SO2 NAAQS and the new SIP-approved rules for attaining the revised 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The commenter asserted that "[t]his unintended consequence therefore subjects the copper smelter to an array of duplicative regulatory requirements that no longer serve any purpose." The commenter also noted that ADEQ has sought to remedy the SIP gap issue by submitting a request to withdraw A.A.C. R18-2-715(F)(2) and R18-2-715(H), which apply only to the copper smelter in the Miami SO2 nonattainment area, from the Arizona SIP.

FMI therefore requested that the EPA either amend its proposed action on Rule B1302 to include a proposed approval of Arizona's revisions to A.A.C. R18-2-715 and R18-2-715.01, or to propose such approval in a separate, but concurrent action. The commenter stated that, by doing so, the EPA could "avoid having any period with a SIP gap by taking simultaneous final action on A.A.C R18-2-B1302 and R18-2-715 and R18-2-715.01" and "allow the existing SIP rules for attaining the 1971 SO2 NAAQS to be properly subsumed by the newly approved SIP rules for attaining the revised 2010 SO2 NAAQS." The commenter asserted that such an approach would be consistent with the EPA's efforts to implement Executive Order 13771, "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs."

Response: The commenter is correct that the EPA has not yet proposed to act on the transitional provisions in A.A.C. R18-2-715(I) and R18-2-715.01(V). As we noted in the TSD for our proposed action on Rule B1302 for the Hayden area, in order to act on the revisions to 715 and 715.01, "we need to evaluate the effect of sunsetting the existing SIP-approved requirements of those rules in conjunction with the new requirements for the Hayden smelter established in Rule B1302." In conducting this evaluation, we explained that:              . . . Rule B1302 does not include a numeric fugitive emission limit, whereas Rule 715 subsection (G) includes an annual average fugitive limit of 295 lb/hr.               In order to ensure that the existing fugitive limit of 295 lb/hr remains in the SIP, we are not acting on the revisions to Rule 715 at this time. Similarly, we are not acting on Rule 715.01, which includes requirements for SO2 compliance determination and monitoring that support the enforceability of the emission limits and requirements in Rule 715.        In other words, approval of R18-2-715(I) and R18-2-715.01(V) at this time would result in the removal of the existing SIP-approved fugitive emission limit and associated compliance requirements for the Hayden Smelter without a new fugitive emissions limit to replace it. For the reasons described in our proposed action on Rule B1302, as well as our proposed and final actions on the Hayden SO2 Plan and the associated responses to comments, in the absence of a fugitive emissions limit, the Plan does not provide for the attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, an action to approve R18-2-715(I) and R18-2-715.01(V) -- and thereby remove the existing fugitive emissions limit from the SIP without replacement -- would interfere with attainment of the 1971 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Such an action would be impermissible under CAA section 110(l), which prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement. Therefore, we have not proposed to approve the transitional provisions in R18-2-715(I) and R18-2-715.01(V).

We acknowledge that our inability to approve these provisions has resulted in a SIP gap and that that the requirements in Rule 715 that apply to the Miami smelter are now duplicative of the requirements in SIP-approved rule A.A.C. R18-2-C1302. However, because the transitional provisions that apply to Hayden and Miami are inseverable from one another (i.e., both are contained within a single paragraph within R18-2-715(I) and R18-2-715.01(V)), we cannot separately approve the transitional provisions for Miami without also approving the provisions for Hayden, which is prohibited by CAA section 110(l).

On March 10, 2020, the EPA received a submittal from ADEQ seeking to withdraw A.A.C. R18-2-715(F)(2) and R18-2-715(H), which apply only to the Miami SO2 nonattainment area, from the Arizona SIP. As noted by the commenter, approval of this SIP revision would remedy the SIP gap issue for the Miami area. We intend to act on this submittal in a separate rulemaking, as it is outside of the scope of this action, which concerns only Rule B1302.


[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4579-4580]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1078]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel INGRID

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore

supply vessel INGRID, as required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR
81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on December
7, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2009-1078 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The offshore supply vessel INGRID will be used for offshore supply
operations. The horizontal distance between the forward and aft
masthead lights may be 21'-10''. Placing the aft masthead light at the
horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by
Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS and Annex I, Section 84.05(a)
of the Inland Rules Act would result in an aft masthead light location
directly over the cargo deck, where it would interfere with loading and
unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS and Annex I,
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: January 4, 2010.
J. W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-1711 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47059-47060]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-92-000]

Southern Illinois Power Cooperative; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 30, 2012, Southern Illinois Power
Cooperative filed a Proposed Revenue Requirement for reactive supply
service under Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Tariff Schedule 2.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 20, 2012.

    Dated: July 31, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19264 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 56419-56421]
[DOCID:fr03oc07-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56554; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to NYSE Rule 104.10(6) (Dealings With Specialists)

September 27, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 25, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the NYSE. The
NYSE has designated the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial''
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \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 NYSE is proposing to extend for three (3) months the current
pilot related to specialist stabilization requirements operating
pursuant to NYSE Rule 104.10(6) (Specialist Transactions in Active
Securities that Establish or Increase the Specialist's Position)
(``Stabilization Pilot''),\5\ that is scheduled to terminate on
September 30, 2007. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on NYSE's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at NYSE's principal office,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54860 (December 1,
2006), 71 FR 71221 (December 8, 2006) (SR-NYSE 2006-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to extend the operation of the
Stabilization Pilot pursuant to NYSE Rule 104.10(6) from September 30,
2007 to the earlier of December 31, 2007 or such time as the Commission
approves a proposal by the Exchange to modify the current Pilot.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On September 14, 2007, the Exchange filed SR-NYSE-2007-83 in
order to amend NYSE Rule 104.10 to (i) extend the duration of the
Stabilization Pilot to March 31, 2008; (ii) remove the ``active
securities'' limitation on Conditional Transactions that establish
or increase a specialist's position and reach across the market to
transact with the Exchange's published quote; and (iii) make certain
conforming changes to NYSE Rule 104.10(5). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 56455 (September 18, 2007), 72 FR 54499 (September
25, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Stabilization Pilot
    On December 1, 2006, the Commission approved changes to NYSE Rules
104.10(5) and 104.10(6) governing specialist stabilization
requirements.\7\ The amendments to the Rule moved away from defining
stabilization in terms of the last sale to focus on market conditions,
the type of trade in question and the specialist's existing position.
The amendments to NYSE Rule 104.10(6) govern Conditional Transactions
(as defined below) in active securities (``Stabilization Pilot'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54860, supra note 5.
    \8\ ``Active'' securities are: (a) securities comprising the S&P
500[reg] Stock Index; (b) securities trading on the Exchange during
the first five trading days following their initial public offering
of such securities; and (c) securities that have been designated as
``active'' by a Floor Official subject to the provisions of the
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Stabilization Pilot, specialists can trade in
active securities that establish or increase a position by reaching
across the market to trade in

the Exchange published bid (in the case of a specialist's sale) or
offer (in the case of a specialist's purchase) when such bid (offer) is
priced below (above) the last differently priced published bid (offer)
(``Conditional Transaction''). A specialist is allowed to execute
Conditional Transactions without restriction as to price provided the
specialist follows said transaction with an appropriate transaction on
the opposite side of the market commensurate with the size of the
specialist's transaction, which is referred to as ``appropriate re-
entry.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Appropriate re-entry'' for Conditional Transactions shall
mean the specialist's stabilization obligation to re-enter a
transaction on the opposite side of the market at or before the
price participation point (``PPP''). The PPP is an Exchange-issued
minimum guideline that identifies the price at or before which a
specialist is expected to re-enter the market after effecting a
Conditional Transaction. PPPs are only minimum guidelines and
compliance with them does not guarantee a specialist is meeting his
or her obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the Stabilization Pilot provides the
specialist with the ability to effect transactions for its dealer
account to provide support to the Hybrid Market. The Exchange believes
that the specialists have a greater ability to position themselves to
provide more liquidity against market trend and thus moderate
volatility. The Exchange, therefore, requests that the Stabilization
Pilot be extended for three (3) months to continue to afford
specialists this needed flexibility to continue their adaptation to the
new challenges of the Hybrid Market.
    The Exchange believes that extension of the Stabilization Pilot
will continue to allow specialists to effectively manage their
inventory in order to provide liquidity during times of market
volatility. As such, the Exchange requests that the Commission extend
the Stabilization Pilot to December 31, 2007, or such earlier time that
the Commission approves the expansion of the Stabilization Pilot as
discussed above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \10\ of the Act that an
Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed rule change also is designed to support
the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \11\ in that it seeks to assure
economically efficient execution of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the
Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text
of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of the filing of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The NYSE requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), which would make the rule change effective and operative
upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because such waiver would allow the Stabilization Pilot to
continue without interruption through the earlier of (i) December 30,
2007 or (ii) when the Commission acts on a corresponding proposed rule
change,\15\ and provide the Exchange and the Commission additional time
to evaluate the pilot.\16\ Accordingly, the Commission designates that
the proposed rule change effective and operative upon filing with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56455, supra note
6.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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-NYSE-2007-84 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-NYSE-2007-84. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. 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-NYSE-2007-84 and should be
submitted on or before October 24, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19490 Filed 10-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P