the actual annual emissions before the change are compared with the projected actual emissions after the change to determine if a physical or operational change would result in a significant increase in emissions. To ensure that the projection is valid, the rule requires the utility to track its emissions for the next 5 years and provide to the reviewing authority information demonstrating that the physical or operational change did not result in an emissions increase.

In promulgating the WEPCO rule, we also adopted a presumption that utilities may use as baseline emissions the actual annual emissions from any 2 consecutive years within the 5 years immediately preceding the change.

On July 23, 1996, we proposed CMA Exhibit B as one alternative as part of a comprehensive proposal to reform the NSR regulations. [ 61 FR 38250.] Finally, on December 21, 2002, we took final action on certain elements of our 1996 proposal and 48 The Court expressed a view that Congress' failure to expressly incorporate the NSPS regulatory definition of NSPS argues against a finding that Congress intended the NSPS definition to apply in implementing the NSR program. Id. at 25.

73 declined to promulgate the CMA Exhibit B approach. Instead, we revised the emissions calculation procedures to include an actual to projected actual emissions test for all sources. [ 67 FR 80290.]

While industry, environmental groups and States filed petitions for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding both our 1980 and 1992 rules, those challenges were not heard and decided until earlier this year when those challenges were consolidated with challenges to our 2002 revisions to the major source NSR program. [ See New York. v. EPA, No. 02 1387 ( D. C. Cir. June 24,

2005).] The Court upheld EPA's regulations concerning the actual to projected actual test. Id., slip op. at 26. While industry argued that the statute requires EPA to use the same definition of " modification" for the NSPS program and NSR programs, the Court concluded that industry had waived the argument and thus declined to address this issue in its ruling. 48 In a separate part of its opinion, the Court held that EPA had discretion in defining the period of time over which to calculate emissions, for purposes of ascertaining whether a physical or operational change increases those emissions. Id. at 39 40. The Court upheld EPA regulations that revised that period as a 2 year period within the 10 years prior the change. The Court stated:

In enacting the NSR program, Congress did not specify how to calculate " increases" in emissions, leaving EPA to fill in that gap while balancing the economic and environmental goals of the statute [ citation omitted]. Based 74 on its experience with the NSR program and its examination of the relevant data, EPA determined that a ten year lookback period would alleviate the problems experienced under the 1980 rule and advance the economic and environmental goals of the CAA....[ W] e defer to EPA's statutory interpretation under Chevron step 2....

Id. at 39 40.

In another part of the Court's opinion, the Court held that the NSR modification requirement, which incorporates by reference CAA section 111( a)( 4), " unambiguously defines ` increases' in terms of actual emissions." Id. at 62. EPA has filed a petition for rehearing in which we argue that this holding was in error, and that the term " increases" is ambiguous for NSR purposes and therefore EPA has discretion to promulgate an actuals,

allowables, or potentials interpretation.

On June 15, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit handed down a decision concerning an enforcement action against Duke Energy Corporation concerning major NSR applicability at eight electric utilities. [ United States v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 04 1763.] The Court ruled that " because Congress mandated that the PSD definition of ` modification' be identical to the NSPS definition of ` modification,' the EPA cannot interpret ` modification' under the PSD inconsistently with the way it interprets that term under the NSPS." Id., slip op. at 12 14). The Court also stated that " No one disputes that prior to enactment of the PSD statute, the EPA promulgated NSPS regulations that define the term ` modification' so that only a project that increases a plant's hourly rate of emissions constitutes a ` modification'" Id., slip op.

at 18. The Court thus held that for purposes of the PSD program, emissions increases must be determined by comparing the pre and post change maximum hourly emissions. 75 C. Legal Rationale 1. Maximum Achievable Hourly Emissions Test Sections 169( 2)( C) and 171( 4) of the Act specify that the definition of " modification" set forth in CAA section 111( a)( 4) applies in the PSD and nonattainment major NSR programs. Pursuant to CAA section 111( a)( 4), the term modification means " any physical change or change in the method of operation of a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted." The statute, however, does not prescribe the methodology for determining when an emissions increase has occurred following a physical change or change in the method of operation. New York v. EPA,

slip op. at 31, 39 40, No. 02 1387 ( D. C. Cir. June 24, 2005). Since Congress did not specify how to calculate " increases" in emissions, it left EPA with the task of filling that gap while balancing the economic and environmental goals of the CAA. Id. at 39 40.

When a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to specific issues, the relevant inquiry for a reviewing court is whether the Agency's interpretation of the statutory provision is permissible. Chevron U. S. A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc. 467 U. S. 837, 865 ( 1984).

Accordingly, EPA has the discretion to propose a reasonable method by which to calculate emissions increases for purposes of NSR applicability. Although we do not assert that the NSPS interpretation is the only one we can adopt for NSR purposes ( we followed quite a different interpretation from 1980 until today), at the very least we believe that the statutory silence on this issue delineates a zone of discretion within which EPA may operate. 49 The 1980 rules revised the pre change ( baseline) emissions calculation to one based on actual emissions, but retained potential to emit for measuring post change emissions.

76 As we discuss in the previous section of this preamble, we modeled our early major NSR method for calculating an emissions increases after the existing NSPS program. In the NSPS program, we define major modification as the maximum achievable hourly increase in emissions at actual operating capacity, considering controls. That is, we defined actual emissions as post controlled emissions at current capacity. Our early NSR regulations defined emissions increases in terms of allowable or potential emissions,

consistent with our interpretation that Congress intended the modification definition to apply to expansions in capacity, but not to apply to the use of existing capacity.

As we previously explained, we promulgated the actual to potential emissions test49 in 1980, after interpreting the Alabama Power final decision as shifting the focus from regulating increases in existing capacity to regulating possible changes in actual emissions. Our decision to change to a historical actual emissions baseline must be viewed in light of the progress of air quality programs at that time. The air quality was significantly degraded in a number of areas and air emission trends showed a steady decline in the quality of our nation's air in some jurisdictions. State and local air pollution control programs were just developing, and the programs mandated in 1990 by parts 2, 3,

and 4 of title I of the Act and programs such as the Acid Rain program, the NOx SIP Call,

CAIR, and BART did not exist. Accordingly, the major NSR program provided States one of the few opportunities under the Clean Air Act to mitigate rising levels of air pollution through regulation of potential emissions increases from existing sources. 77 Moving to an actual to potential applicability test was a sensible approach for managing air quality at that time, and interpreting the Alabama Power final decision to support this goal was appropriate.

The Alabama Power Court recognized EPA's discretion to define the same statutory terms differently in the NSR and NSPS regulations. [ Alabama Power Co. v.

Costle, 636 F. 2d at 397 98 ( EPA has latitude to adopt definitions of the component terms of " source" that are different in scope from those that may be employed for NSPS and PSD, due to differences in the purpose and structure of the two programs).] Moreover,

while the Court held that potential to emit must be determined considering controls, and that NSR major modifications must be determined considering total or net emissions from the source over a contemporaneous period, the Court otherwise left it to EPA's discretion to determine how emissions increases following a physical change or change in the method of operation were to be determined, including the currency for measuring the emissions increases. Id. at 353 54, 401 03.

In using our discretion for defining the component term " increases in any pollutant emitted" within the definition of " modification," we are mindful of Congress' directive that the major NSR program be tailored in such a way as to balance the need for environmental protection against the desires to encourage economic growth. In this context, the appropriate methodologies for measuring emissions increases is inherently linked to our responsibility to guide the States in their efforts to achieve and maintain an effective,

comprehensive air quality program, of which the major NSR program is only one component. See section 101( a) of the Act. Accordingly, as both we and the States have 78 gained experience in managing air quality, we have amended the applicability provisions of the NSR regulations to better balance the need for environmental protection and economic growth, and the administrative burden of running the program. ( See for example 57 FR 32314, July 21, 1992; 67 FR 80186, December 31, 2002; 68 FR 61248, October 27,

2003.)

In light of the progress of air quality programs under the 1990 CAA to reduce EGU emissions and the policy goals of the major NSR program, we considered the appropriate scope of the major NSR program as it applies to existing sources. The NSR program's scope is closely related to the scope of the NSPS program, created 7 years earlier in the CAA Amendments of 1970. In section 111 of the CAA, which sets forth the NSPS provisions, Congress applied the NSPS to `` new sources.'' [ CAA sections 111( b)( 1)( B), 111( b)( 4).] Congress determined that as a general matter it would not impose the NSPS standards on existing sources, instead leaving to the State and local permitting authorities the decision of the extent to which to regulate those sources through `` State Implementation Plans'' designed to implement National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS). [ See CAA section 110.] Congress followed a similar approach in determining the scope of the major NSR program established by the 1977 Amendments to the CAA. As amended, the CAA specifies that State Implementation Plans must contain provisions that require sources to obtain major NSR permits prior to the point of `` construction'' of a source. [ CAA sections172( c)( 5); 165 ( a).] By contrast,

the CAA generally leaves to State and local permitting authorities in the first instance the question of the extent, means, and timetable for obtaining reductions from existing sources 50 45 FR 52676, August, 7, 1980; 57 FR 32314, July 21, 1992; 67 FR 80186, December 31, 2002. See items 0036, 0027, and 0030 in E Docket OAR 2005 0163.

79 that are needed to comply with NAAQS. [ See CAA sections 172( c)( 1), 161.] NSR's applicability to existing sources that undergo a `` modification'' is an exception to this basic concept. This exception likewise finds its roots in the NSPS program's applicability to `` modifications'' of existing sources. The 1970 CAA made the NSPS program applicable to modifications through its definition of a `` new source,'' which it defined as `` any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after the publication of regulations * * * prescribing a[ n applicable] standard of performance* * *.''

[ CAA section 111( a)( 2).] CAA section 111( a)( 4), in turn, defined a`` modification'' as `` any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted from such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted.''

The 1980, 1992 and 2002 rules50 were reasonable interpretations of the statutory language in CAA section 111( a)( 4) for purposes of the major NSR program and the air quality needs of the country at those times, and continue to be reasonable in many respects. Nonetheless, we retain discretion to adopt other constructs for determining emissions increases following a physical change or change in the method of operation when they make sense in particular circumstances. The proposed regulations would establish a uniform emissions test nationally under the NSPS and NSR programs for existing EGUs. They would also streamline requirements for EGUs. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate to tailor the major NSR program for EGUs to regulate 51 As previously stated, the United States has filed a petition for rehearing on this aspect of the Court's decision in New York v. EPA. See item 0050 in E Docket OAR 2005 0163.

80 modifications that result in increases to an EGU's existing capacity. The maximum achievable hourly emissions test is an appropriate tool for this purpose.

The Court in New York v. EPA held that the language of the CAA indicates that Congress intended to apply NSR to changes that increase actual emissions, instead of potential or allowable emissions. Slip op. at 64. The Court based its opinion, in part, on the Alabama Power Court's finding that the term " emit" in the phrase " emit, or have the potential to emit" within the definition of major emitting facility, is " some measure of actual emissions." New York v. EPA, slip op. at 63, citing Alabama Power , 636 F. 2d at 353 ( emphasis added). 51 To the extent that the Alabama Power Court's holding relating to the definition of major emitting facility in CAA section 169( 1) should have any persuasive value in interpreting a different component term ( increases the amount of any air pollutant) in a different definition [ definition of modification in CAA 111( a)( 4)] in the Act, the Court's reference to " some measure of actual emissions" indicates that the statute allows for different ways of measuring actual emissions.

We believe that the maximum achievable hourly emissions test provides " some measure of actual emissions." For most, if not all EGUs, the amount at which the unit is actually able to emit   its maximum achievable hourly rate   is equivalent to that unit's maximum actual hourly rate during the relevant period. States require most, if not all EGUs, to perform periodic performance tests under applicable State Implementation Plans 52 See also 36 FR 24876, December 23, 1971. Referring to performance tests, we stated that " Procedures have been modified so that the equipment will have to be operated at maximum expected production rate, rather than rated capacity, during compliance tests."

81 and enhanced monitoring requirements. The NSPS regulations require a source to conduct testing based on representative performance of the affected facility, generally interpreted as performance at current maximum physical and operational capacity. [ 40 CFR 60.8( c).] 52 Also, in the National Stack Test Guidance that we issued on September 30, 2005, we recommended that facilities conduct performance tests under conditions that are " most likely to challenge the emissions control measures of the facility with regard to meeting the applicable emission standards, but without creating an unsafe condition."

Most EGUs actually emit at the highest level at which they are capable of emitting at some time within a 5 year baseline period.

One way in which the maximum achievable hourly emissions test differs from the way actual emissions are measured under the current actual to projected actual test is that the former measures actual emissions over an hourly period rather than over an annual period. When Congress enacted the 1977 amendments to the CAA creating the NSR program, it did not specify how increases in emissions were to be calculated, or over what increment of time emissions should be measured. Nonetheless, Congress was likely aware, before it enacted the 1977 Amendments, that we calculated emissions increases in terms of kg/ hr to determine whether a project resulted in a " modification." Congress did not indicate anywhere in the 1977 Amendments or the legislative history that our use of a kg/ hr measure of emissions would be contrary to the purposes of the NSR program.

Accordingly, we believe that we have discretion to determine the appropriate increment of 82 time over which to measure actual emissions for purposes of determining whether emissions increases have occurred in the major NSR program.

We believe that it is reasonable to use an hourly period to calculate actual emissions for purposes of measuring emissions increases in the major NSR program. Prior to Congress' enactment of the major NSR provisions in the CAA Amendments of 1977,

the NSPS regulations calculated emissions increases from physical and operational changes in terms of hourly emissions. Our 1975 NSPS regulations provided that " any physical or operational change to an existing facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies shall be considered a modification within the meaning... of the Act," with " emission rate... expressed as kg/ hr of any pollutant discharged to the atmosphere." [ 40 FR 58416,

58419 ( December 16, 1975)] Even before the 1975 NSPS rule, we put forth a definition of " modification" in a 1974 regulation implementing what became known as the " Prevention of Significant Deterioration" program. [ 39 FR 42510 ( December 5, 1974).]

The regulation's preamble further provided that we intended the term " modified source"

to be " consistent with the definition used in the [ NSPS]." Id. at 42513.

We further believe that today's revised emissions test does not result in a substantially different outcome from the actual to projected actual test. The current major NSR regulations measure actual emissions differently from the emissions test we are proposing by assessing changes in emissions relative to historical emissions over a baseline period defined in terms of annual emissions. Nonetheless, like the NSPS test, the major NSR regulations allow for consideration of an emissions unit's operating capacity in 83 determining whether a change results in an emissions increase. Under the actual

toprojected actual test, a source can subtract from its post project emissions those emissions that the unit could have accommodated during the baseline period and that are unrelated to the change ( sometimes referred to as the " demand growth exclusion"). That is, the source can emit up to its current maximum capacity without triggering major NSR under the actual to projected actual test, as long as the increase is unrelated to the physical or operational change. The NSPS approach thus differs from the major NSR test only by when a source considers operating capacity in the methodology, and by assuming that a source's use of existing operating capacity is unrelated to the change.

Although the approaches differ, applying the maximum achievable hourly emissions test for EGUs in the major NSR program has merit because it reduces the administrative burden of the NSR program. It eliminates the burden of projecting future emissions and distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand growth, because any increase in the emissions under the maximum achievable emissions test would logically be attributed to the change. It reduces recordkeeping and reporting burdens on sources because compliance will no longer rely on synthesizing emissions data into rolling average emissions. In view of this, allowing use of the maximum achievable hourly rate test reasonably balances the economic need of sources to use existing operating capacity with the environmental benefit of regulating those emissions increases related to a change. Moreover, allowing use of this approach for EGUs is a reasonable use of our discretion to define how we measure emissions increases for purposes of the major NSR program, because it reduces administrative 84 burden associated with the emissions calculation procedure, and considers the effectiveness of other regulatory programs in regulating use of existing EGU capacity.

Finally, the test allows sources to undertake projects designed to improve the efficiency, reliability, and safety of the EGU without necessitating a finding that postchange emissions at such a unit are unrelated to regulated physical or operational changes.

In our 2003 final rule on the Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion for NSR ( 68 FR 61248, October 27,

2003), we articulated our position that activities designed to promote safety, reliability,

and efficiency of emissions units should not be subject to major NSR, yet it is often these types of projects that raise questions as to whether post change emissions are related to a change. The maximum achievable hourly emissions test encourages sources to undertake such projects by focusing reviewing authority resources on changes that add new operating capacity rather than on projects that restore a source to normal operations.

Importantly, short term emissions are a good indicator for operating capacity. That is,

longer averaging periods, such as an annual basis, can mask spikes in production.

2. Maximum Achieved Hourly Emissions Test As we stated in Section IV. B. of this preamble, we also believe that, like the maximum achievable hourly emissions test, the maximum achieved emissions test is a measure of a source's actual emissions. The maximum achieved hourly emissions test is based on a specific measure of historical actual emissions during a representative period.

Therefore, even though it is not our preferred option, we believe that a test based on maximum achieved hourly emissions satisfies the requirement that major NSR applicability 85 be based on " some measure of actual emissions." For the reasons that we state in Section V. C. 1 of this preamble, we believe we have discretion to adopt a maximum hourly achieved emissions test for determining whether there is an increase in emissions following a physical change or change in the method of operation. We request comment on this option and on whether it satisfies the requirement that major NSR applicability be based on a measure of actual emissions.

We request public comment on all aspects of the legal basis in today's proposed action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866   Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 86 programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a " significant regulatory action" within the meaning of the Executive Order.

EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request ( ICR)

document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1230.18.

Certain records and reports are necessary for the State or local agency ( or the EPA Administrator in non delegated areas), for example, to: ( 1) confirm the compliance status of stationary sources, identify any stationary sources not subject to the standards, and identify stationary sources subject to the rules; and ( 2) ensure that the stationary source control requirements are being achieved. The information would be used by the EPA or State enforcement personnel to ( 1) identify stationary sources subject to the rules, ( 2)

ensure that appropriate control technology is being properly applied, and ( 3) ensure that the emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis. Based on the reported information, the State, local, or tribal agency can decide which plants, records, or processes should be inspected. 87 The proposed rule would reduce burden for owners and operators of major stationary sources. While we do not expect a change in the number of permit actions due to the proposed changes, we expect the proposed rule would simplify applicability determinations, eliminate the burden of projecting future emissions and distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand growth, and reduce recordkeeping and reporting burdens. Over the 3 year period covered by the ICR, we estimate an average annual reduction in burden of about 5,870 hours and $ 462,000 for all industry entities that would be affected by the proposed rule. For the same reasons, we also expect the proposed rule to reduce burden for State and local authorities reviewing permits when fully implemented. However, there would be a onetime additional burden for State and local agencies to revise their SIPs to incorporate the proposed changes. We estimate this one time burden to be about 2,240 annual hours and $ 83,000 for all State and local reviewing authorities that would be affected by this proposed rule.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.

This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of responding to the information collection; adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;

complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 88 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,

a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. We will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's regulations, and in each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The table lists the section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizine respondent burden,

including use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number OAR 2005 1064. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ` Addresses'

section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, Northwest, Washington, DC 20503, Attention:

Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [ Insert date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [ Insert date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final 89 rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's notice on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U. S. Small Business Administration ( SBA) size standards. ( See 13 CFR 121.201); ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's notice on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives " which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities." 5 U. S. C. sections 603 and 604. 90 Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect, on all of the small entities subject to the rule.

We believe that today's proposed rule changes will relieve the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program for all EGUs, including any EGUs that are small businesses. This is because the proposed rule would simplify applicability determinations,

eliminate the burden of projecting future emissions and distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand growth, and by reducing recordkeeping and reporting burdens. As a result, the program changes provided in the proposed rule are not expected to result in any increases in expenditure by any small entity.

We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for all small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), P. L. 104 4,

establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 91 which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this rule would not contain a Federal mandate that would result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Although initially these changes are expected to result in a small increase in the burden imposed upon reviewing authorities in order for them to be included in the State's SIP, these revisions would ultimately simplify applicability determinations, eliminate the burden of reviewing projected future emissions and distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand growth, and reduce the burden associated with making compliance 92 determinations. Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

For the same reasons stated above, we have determined that today's notice contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132   Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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."

This proposed rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. We estimate an onetime burden of approximately 2,240 hours and $ 83,000 for State agencies to revise their SIPs to include the proposed regulations. However, these revisions would ultimately simplify applicability determinations, eliminate the burden of reviewing projected future emissions and distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the change from those 93 due solely to demand growth, and reduce the burden associated with making compliance determinations. This will in turn reduce the overall burden of the program. Thus,

Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175   Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled " Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. There are no Tribal authorities currently issuing major NSR permits. To the extent that today's proposed rule may apply in the future to any EGU that may locate on tribal lands, tribal officials are afforded the opportunity to comment on tribal implications in today's notice. Thus,

Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. We will also consult with tribal officials, including officials of the Navaho Nation lands on which Navajo Power Plant and Four Corners Generating Plant are located, before promulgating the final regulations. 94 G. Executive Order 13045   Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: " Protection of Children from Environmental health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5 501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because we do not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

We believe that, based on our analysis of electric utilities, this rule as a whole will result in equal environmental protection to that currently provided by the existing regulations, and do so in a more streamlined and effective manner.

H. Executive Order 13211   Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a " significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211,

" Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,

or Use" [ 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)] because it is not likely to have a significant 95 adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In fact, this rule improves owner/ operator flexibility concerning the supply, distribution, and use of energy.

Specifically, the proposed rule would increase owner/ operators' ability to utilize existing capacity at EGUs.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Page 95 of 95 (" NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104 113, 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( for example, materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Today's proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Electric Generating Unit, BACT, LAER, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur dioxide, BART, Clean Air Interstate Rule. 96 ____________________

Dated:

_____________________

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator


DATE: October 7, 2003 PARTICIPANTS: Bill Fortune ( DOE), Jerry Coalgate ( DOE), Richard Martin ( DOE Oak Ridge), Nancy Dailey ( ORNL), Paul Taylor ( ORNL), Phil Kirkham ( ORNL), Laura Coughlan ( EPA) and Lisa Lauer ( EPA)

SUBJECT: Conference call between EPA staff and DOE representatives concerning DOE's comment regarding the proposed addition of benzene to the headworks exemption with the contingent management practices.

The purpose of the call was to gain a better understanding of Oak Ridge National Laboratory's ( ORNL) wastewater treatment system. The ORNL WWTU system was the focus of certain comments submitted by the Department of Energy ( DOE). In the comments, DOE requested that EPA reconsider the proposed condition that mixtures containing benzene must be managed only in aerated biological wastewater treatment systems, and allow benzene to be discharged to the headworks of wastewater treatment units ( WWTU) ( at the 1ppm total headworks limit) as is allowed for the other solvents listed in § 261.3( a)( 2)( iv)( A) ( Document ID# RCRA 2002 0028 0117). DOE stated in the comments that ORNL's WWTU uses a combination of air strippers and granular activated carbon columns to remove organic compounds, and that this treatment system is as effective as an aerated biological treatment unit.

During the phone discussion, DOE representatives described the ORNL WWTU in more detail ( see attached fax of simplified flow diagram). Wastewater is first filtered for any solids and minerals are removed through precipitation. The sludge produced from this clarification is disposed of as solid low level waste. After clarification, the wastewater is air stripped of volatile organic compounds, the resulting air stream is emitted directly to the atmosphere, and the resulting water effluent is sent through activated carbon to adsorb any remaining contaminants prior to discharging into the White Oak Creek. The activated carbon is also disposed commercially. The DOE representatives explained that, while the ORNL site is a large quantity generator of RCRA waste, the facility currently prohibits the routine discharge of any listed wastes into the wastewater treatment system and generally has very low levels of organic compounds entering their WWTU. Therefore, the wastewater and resulting solids of the treatment process are not hazardous wastes. The DOE representatives also stated that ORNL currently has no streams targeted for the proposed headworks exemption, and does not presently foresee using the headworks exemption on any particular waste streams at the facility. The DOE representatives stated that the primary purpose of their comments regarding the removal of the contingent management requirements was to ascertain why EPA was being restrictive with respect to the type of waste treatment units that are acceptable. In addition, DOE representative explained that a secondary concern relates to the nature of the ORNL facility. The ORNL is a multi program science and technology laboratory with numerous individual labs and research activities with changing missions and research priorities. Consequently, future lab activities/ efforts could potentially result in small volumes of other chemical constituents entering the wastewater system ( that could be effectively handled by the WWTU).

In response, the EPA staff explained that the restrictions were a direct result of the risk modeling conducted for the proposed rule. The DOE representatives suggested that EPA add regulatory language that would allow aerated biological treatment or an equivalent method to be used to qualify for the exemption. The EPA staff stated that additional modeling would be needed if such language were added, since only the most common treatment technology currently used by facilities to treat these wastes, biological treatment, was modeled. The DOE representatives questioned the need for additional modeling ( i. e., in order to incorporate such regulatory language), and indicated that maybe something similar to the land disposal restrictions ( LDR) demonstration of equivalent treatment could be considered.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10962-10963]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0172]

Hours of Service: Exemption Application From Flat Top Transport,
LLC

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny Flat Top Transport's
request for an exemption from the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations.
Flat Top Transport requested a four-month exemption for ``immediate and
emergency delivery of dry and bulk food grade products to locations
that supply stores and distribution centers nationally.'' FMCSA
analyzed the application and public comments and determined that the
exemption would not achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bernadette Walker, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards, FMCSA;<PHONE_NUMBER>; or [email protected].
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number ``FMCSA-2022-0172'' in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, ``View Related Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-2022-0172'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and chose the
document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency must
publish its decision in

the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying
or granting the application and, if granted, the name of the person or
class of persons receiving the exemption and the regulatory provision
from which the exemption is granted. The notice must specify the
effective period and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption.
The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulatory Requirements

    To reduce the possibility of driver fatigue, FMCSA's HOS
regulations in 49 CFR part 395 limit the time drivers of commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) may drive. The HOS regulations in 49 CFR
395.3(a)(1) prohibit an individual from driving again after 11 hours
driving or 14 hours on duty until they have been off duty for a minimum
of 10 consecutive hours, or the equivalent of at least 10 consecutive
hours off duty. Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2)--commonly referred to as the
14-hour ``driving window''--a driver has 14 consecutive hours in which
to drive up to 11 hours after being off duty for 10 or more consecutive
hours. Section 395.3(b)(1) prohibits drivers for a motor carrier that
does not operate CMVs every day of the week from driving a CMV after
being on duty for 60 hours during any 7 consecutive days, and section
395.3(b)(2) prohibits drivers for a motor carrier that operates CMVs
every day of the week from driving a CMV after being on duty for 70
hours in any 8 consecutive days.

Applicant's Request

    Flat Top Transport seeks a four-month exemption from the HOS
regulations in 49 CFR part 395. Flat Top Transport requests the
exemption to provide ``immediate and emergency delivery of dry and bulk
food grade products to locations that supply stores and distribution
centers nationally.'' Flat Top states that ``the products being
delivered are under strict time constraints and the number of available
trucks is limited. Due to railroads being limited and a truck driver
shortage, the inflation rates of parts and services, the time
constraints of hours of service are causing many food producing factors
to shut down until the products arrive.''
    Flat Top Transport describes itself as a small trucking company
with between 9 and 10 drivers which delivers products such as food
grade flour, corn meal, and salts used to produce cereals, baked goods,
canned goods, and meat processing. In its application, Flat Top did not
identify any alternative compliance measures that it would undertake to
achieve an equivalent level of safety as complying with the existing
HOS regulations.

IV. Public Comments

    On September 1, 2022, FMCSA published notice of Flat Top
Transport's application for exemption and requested public comment (86
FR 50426). The Agency received 11 comments. North American Millers'
Association, Schell Transport, Michael Bechara, Dana Burchell, Rich
Dickerson, and two anonymous commenters favored the exemption
application. Schell Transport commented, ``I am in favor of HOS relief
to help with food supply chain issues.'' Two commenters, Remmel
Transport, LLC and Tracy Hall, offered no position either for or
against the request, submitting general comments instead. Remmel
Transport commented, ``There needs to be exemption for all fleets
operating under 30 trucks.'' The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA) and AWM Associates, LLC opposed the exemption. CVSA commented
that ``supply chain delays do not constitute an emergency situation
that would necessitate temporary relief from hours-of-service
regulations.''

V. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA continues to monitor unique challenges motor carriers and
drivers experience while transporting freight on our Nation's highways
and works to ensure that safety is not compromised. Supply chain issues
alone, however, do not provide a sufficient basis to exempt motor
carriers transporting dry bulk food grade products from the HOS
regulations. Under 49 CFR 381.310(c)(1), applicants are required to
explain how they would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by
complying with the regulations. Flat Top offered no basis on which
FMCSA could conclude that granting an exemption from the HOS
regulations would provide an equivalent level of safety.

    For the above reasons, Flat Top Transport, LLC's exemption
application is denied.
Robin Hutchinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-03564 Filed 2-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Page 1 of 1 1/ 18/ 2006 U. S. EPA BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS Land Restoration and Preservation Subcommittee MEETING AGENDA January 23, 2006 12: 00 pm   2: 00 pm EST CONFERENCE CALL # 4 Participation by Teleconference Only 866 299 3188 code: 2025648239#

Monday, January 23, 2006 12: 00 PM Objectives of this Call Dr. Charlie Menzie Overview of Work Accomplished Chair, Land Subcommittee 12: 10 PM Administrative Procedures Heather Drumm ( EPA) DFO, Land Subcommittee 12: 15 PM Discuss Draft Report Land Subcommittee 1: 45 PM Next Steps   BOSC Executive Committee Review Dr. Charlie Menzie Chair, Land Subcommittee 1: 55 PM Public Comments 2: 00 PM Adjourn


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2875-2876]
[FR Doc No: 2010-785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on February 24, 2010, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, The Ballroom, 8727
Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD. The hotel phone number is 301-589-
5200.
    Contact Person: Paul Tran, RPh., Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for
express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857,
301-827-7001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA
Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in
the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information
Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice in the
Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss the safety and efficacy of new
drug application (NDA) 22-505, for EGRIFTA (tesamorelin acetate)
sterile lyophilized powder for injection, by Theratechnologies, Inc.
EGRIFTA is an analogue (a chemical compound that resembles another
compound in structure) of growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH). The
proposed indication (use) for EGRIFTA in this application is to induce
and maintain a reduction of excess visceral abdominal fat in human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with lipodystrophy (a
condition in which abnormal deposits of fat are seen partly as a result
of using certain drugs to treat HIV disease).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
February 17, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before February 9, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may
be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by February
10, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Paul Tran at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisory

Committees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during
advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 12, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-785 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44644-44645]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18801]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64933; File No. SR-BX-2011-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Renumber
Rule 5230

July 20, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 18, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule
change as effecting a change described under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act,\3\ 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\ 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 renumber Rule 5230 as Rule 5230A. The text
of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in
italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Changes are marked to the rules of the Exchange found at
http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5000A. Supplementary Conduct Rules

[5230.] 5230A. Payments Involving Publications that Influence the
Market Price of a Security

    (a)-(b) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
    In January 2010, the Exchange adopted Rule 5230, which incorporated
changes to the corresponding FINRA rules on payments involving
publications that influence the market price of a security.\5\ At that
time, the remainder of the Exchange's Rule 5000 Series was unused.
Subsequently, the Exchange has adopted listing rules for the BX Venture
Market and placed those rules in the Rule 5000 Series.\6\ Because Rule
5230 deals with member conduct, and not listing on the BX Venture
Market, the Exchange proposes to renumber existing Rule 5230 as Rule
5230A to separate it from the listing rules and thereby avoid
confusion. There is no change to the substance of the rule. The
Exchange also proposes to adopt Rule 5000A as a title for this new
series of rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61495 (February 4,
2010), 75 FR 7528 (February 19, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-006).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64437 (May 6, 2011), 76
FR 27710 (May 12, 2011) (SR-BX-2010-059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
change will help avoid confusion that could otherwise arise from having
a member conduct rule intertwined in the Exchange's listing rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\10\
in that the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest; provided the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission 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 filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The proposed rule change will renumber an
existing rule, without changing the substance of that rule. Therefore,
the Exchange believes it does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest or raise any novel or significant
regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-047 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-047. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-047 and should be submitted on
or before August 16, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18801 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Steve Jackson/RTP/USEPA/US

01/25/07 04:16 PM

To

Dave Mckee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Mike Ray/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rebecca Calderon/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Fw: Accuracy and Bias of Ozone Measurements

Dave,

My second statement regarding bias should be changed to read as follows.

"Historical records indicate that the ozone concentrations measured during the ozone exposure studies are accurate within +/- 5% and are unbiased."

Thanks for opportunity to clarify.  Steve

Stephen T. Jackson

Human Studies Division MD58A

NHEERL/US EPA

RTP, NC 27709

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Stephen Jackson/DC/USEPA/US

01/25/2007 02:52 PM

To

Steve Jackson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Fw: Accuracy and Bias of Ozone Measurements

----- Forwarded by Stephen Jackson/DC/USEPA/US on 01/25/2007 02:51 PM -----

Dave Mckee/RTP/USEPA/US

01/25/2007 02:44 PM

To

Stephen Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Accuracy and Bias of Ozone Measurements

Stephen,

         I pulled out a couple of key phrases that concisely state the bottom lines of your earlier emails about accuracy and bias in the ozone measurements in the ozone chamber studies conducted in Chapel Hill.  Please let me know if you agree that these representation your conclusions.  Thanks.

          Dave

"The accuracy we have historically used in conducting our studies, including the ozone studies,  is +/- 5%.  In the case of the ozone standard, the .080 ppm measurements can range from .076 ppm to .084 ppm.  The greatest acceptable variation at the lowest end of the detectable range is .01 ppm.  These limits are a function of the accuracy of our instruments."

"Nothing in my experience, either directly or from review of historic documents, suggests there was or is any bias in our ozone measurements.  Steve"


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 73769]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3233]

Request for Nominations for Voting Members on a Public Advisory
Committee; Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards
Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
nominations for voting members to serve on the Technical Electronic
Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee (TEPRSSC) in the Center
for Devices and Radiological Health. Nominations will be accepted for
current and upcoming vacancies effective January 1, 2023, with this
notice. FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all
racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities
on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

DATES: Nominations received on or before January 30, 2023, will be
given first consideration for membership on TEPRSSC. Nominations
received after January 30, 2023, will be considered for nomination to
the committee as later vacancies occur.

ADDRESSES: All nominations for membership should be sent electronically
by accessing FDA's Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm or
by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming a member on an
FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's website
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Akinola Awojope, Office of Management
Services, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5216, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nominations for voting
members on TEPRSSC that include five general public representatives and
five government representatives.

I. General Description of the Committee's Duties

    The committee provides advice and consultation to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs (Commissioner) on the technical feasibility,
reasonableness, and practicability of performance standards for
electronic products to control the emission of radiation from such
products, and may recommend electronic product radiation safety
standards to the Commissioner for consideration.

II. Criteria for Voting Members

    The committee consists of a core of 15 voting members including the
Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or
designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of science
or engineering, applicable to electronic product radiation safety.
Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4
years. Terms of more than 2 years are contingent upon the renewal of
the committee by appropriate action prior to its expiration.

III. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified
individuals for membership on the committee. Self-nominations are also
accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete
r[eacute]sum[eacute] or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including
current business address and/or home address, telephone number, and
email address if available and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and
Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see
ADDRESSES). Nominations must also specify the advisory committee for
which the nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge
that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA
will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information
concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and
research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible
sources of conflicts of interest.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: November 25, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-26125 Filed 11-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47492-47494]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-501-000]

Port Arthur LNG, LLC; Notice of Scoping Period Requesting
Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Port Arthur Liquified
Natural Gas Amendment

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Port Arthur LNG, LLC's (PALNG)
Amendment (Amendment). If authorized, the Amendment would allow 24-
hour-per day construction activities, increase in the total workforce
to construct the project, and increase the parking available at the
approved liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal from what was previously
authorized in the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port
Arthur Liquefaction Project in Jefferson County, Texas (Docket No.
CP17-20-000), which the Commission authorized on April 18, 2019. This
request is only regarding the facilities described in CP17-20-000. The
Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public interest.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of an authorization. This gathering of public input is
referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to
focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important
environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's
NEPA process is described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental
Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on 8/17/2023. Comments may be submitted
in writing. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in
the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on June 21, 2023, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP23-501-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can
provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file
with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by
clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of
filing you are making; a comment on a particular project is considered
a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP23-
501- 000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all

issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you
subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to
receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for
eSubscription.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

Summary of the Proposed Amendment

    As part of the Amendment, PALNG proposes to: (1) extend the work
hours from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. to 24-hours-per-day until completion of
the facilities described in CP17-20-000; (2) increase the workforce
from 3,000 to 6,000 workers during peak construction; and (3) increase
the onsite terminal parking from 500 to 1,000 parking spaces.
    PALNG indicates that this Amendment would maintain a development
schedule that maximizes construction efficiency while minimizing the
duration of environmental and community disturbance in the vicinity of
the approved terminal and meet the approved terminal construction
schedule.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY
(202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The Amendment request does not involve the construction of any new
facilities nor any additional land disturbance at the Port Arthur LNG
Terminal site. The additional 500 parking spaces would be within the
previously authorized terminal site.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Amendment under
the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     socioeconomics;
     environmental justice;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed Amendment or portions of the project and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
Amendment. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you
will receive instant email notification when the environmental document
is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The environmental document for this
project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes state, and local government
representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes
all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations)
who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used
temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain
distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on
the project and includes a mailing address with their comments.
Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the
analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this
environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or

potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP23-501-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

     Dated: July 18, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15604 Filed 7-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64500-64501]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG13-4-000.
    Applicants: Texas Dispatchable Wind 1, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Texas Dispatchable Wind 1, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5210.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-74-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of SA No. 3381 in Docket Nos.
ER12-2442-000, et al to be effective 9/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-81-000.
    Applicants: Frontier Utilities New York LLC.
    Description: Baseline New to be effective 10/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-92-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company.
    Description: WPL's Changes in Depreciation Rates for Wholesale
Production Service to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-98-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: PSE Rate Schedule CG-1 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 12, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25885 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P