[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 105 (Monday, June 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33052-33059]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11182]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0643; FRL-10009-77-Region 8]

Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 1, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS), revising the standard to 0.070 parts per million. Whenever a
new or revised is promulgated, the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires
each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new standard. This
submission is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP. In this
action we are proposing to approve the State of Utah's 2015 ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submitted to the EPA on January 29, 2020.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0643, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. To reduce the risk of
COVID-19 transmission, for this action we will not be accepting
comments submitted by mail or hand delivery
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will not be placed on the internet. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at
www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access
to the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mail can be directed to the Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail-code 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

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

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone,
revising the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards
from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.\1\ More recently, on
October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated and revised the NAAQS for ozone,
further strengthening the primary and secondary 8-hour standards to
0.070 ppm.\2\ The October 1, 2015 standards are known as the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Final rule, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, 73 FR 16436, 16483 (March 27, 2008).
    \2\ Final rule, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, 80 FR 65292, 65362 (Oct. 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, after the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS states are required to submit infrastructure
SIPs to ensure their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS.\3\ These submissions must contain any
revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that the existing SIPs already meet those
requirements. The EPA highlighted and explained this statutory
requirement in a series of guidance documents.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1), (2).
    \4\ ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (Oct. 2, 2007); ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (Sep. 25, 2009); ``Guidance on Infrastructure
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008
Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (Oct. 14,
2011); ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' (Sep. 13,
2013) (2013 Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What infrastructure elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2)?

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP

must contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements include
requirements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories,
which are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
The elements that are the subject of this action are listed below.
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials,
public notification, and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    A detailed discussion of each of these elements for Utah is
contained in section III of this document.

B. How did the State address the infrastructure elements of Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?

    The Utah 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions
demonstrates how the State, where applicable, has plans in place that
meet the requirements of section 110 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
State submittals are available in the electronic docket for today's
proposed action at www.regulations.gov.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Utah made a submittal to address the 2015 ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP requirements on October 24, 2019, but then made a
second submittal on January 29, 2020, to address public
participation requirements. The second submittal is comprehensive
and includes all of the substantive material in the first, but for
completeness the docket includes both submittals (see `UT 2015 Ozone
ISIP Submission--10.24.19' and 01.29.20 UT 2015 ISIP Submission' in
docket).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) submitted a
certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on
January 29, 2020. The State's submission references the current Utah
Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) Rules (UAR).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r307/r307.htm (as
in effect December 1, 2019; site accessed April 13, 2020); Utah's
approved SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.2320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the scope of this proposed rule?

    The EPA is acting upon SIP submissions from Utah that address the
infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating a
new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    Whenever the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. The EPA has
previously provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these
provisions through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP
submissions and through regional actions on infrastructure
submissions.\7\ Unless otherwise noted below, we are following that
approach in acting on this submission. In addition, in the context of
acting on infrastructure submissions, the EPA generally evaluates the
state's SIP for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, not for the state's implementation of its SIP.\8\ The EPA
has other authority to address any issues concerning a state's
implementation of the rules, regulations, consent orders, and other
materials that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance
(available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/guidance_on_infrastructure_sip_elements_multipollutant_final_sept_2013.pdf), as well as in agency actions on infrastructure SIPs. See,
e.g., Proposed Rule, Promulgation of State Implementation Plan
Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota, 79 FR 71040 (December
1, 2014).
    \8\ See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 902 F.3d 971, 978
(9th Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Evaluation of the State Submittal

A. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including
economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of
emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance
as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements
of this Act.
    Multiple SIP-approved UDAQ Rules cited in Utah's certification
provide enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related
matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) for the 2015 NAAQS. The State's submission cites SIP
section I (Legal Authority), which allows the adoption of emission
standards and other limits necessary for attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. SIP section I, in combination with other specific control
measures adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board (AQB), and multiple SIP-
approved state air quality regulations cited in Utah's certification,
including SIP sections II (Review of New and Modified Air Pollution
Sources), VIII (Prevention of Significant Deterioration), IX (Part D: 8
Hour Ozone Provisions), X (Part A, B, C: Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program General Provisions), ozone Reasonable Available
Control Technology (RACT) rules and R307-325 (Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: General Requirement), R307-326 (Ozone Nonattainment
and Maintenance Areas: Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions), R307-327
(Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage),
R307-328 (Gasoline Transfer and Storage), R307-335 (Ozone Nonattainment
and Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations),
R307-340 (Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating
Processes) provide enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means of techniques, schedules for compliance, and other
related matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) for the 2015 ozone

NAAQS, subject to the following clarifications.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Utah 2015 Ozone Infrastructure SIP Submission, pp. 1, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA does not consider the SIP requirements triggered by the
nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title 1 of the CAA to be
governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Nevertheless,
Utah has included some SIP provisions originally submitted in response
to part D requirements in its certification for the infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2). For the purposes of this action, the
EPA is reviewing any rules originally submitted in response to part D
requirements solely for the purposes of determining whether they
support a finding that the State has met the basic infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2). For example, in response to the
requirement to have enforceable emission limitations under section
110(a)(2)(A), Utah's certification (contained within this docket)
generally listed provisions within its SIP which regulate pollutants
through various programs, including its stationary source permit
program, which requires sources to demonstrate that emissions will not
cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. The EPA is approving
those rules as meeting the requirement to have enforceable emission
limitations on ozone precursors; any judgment about whether those
emission limitations discharge the State's obligation to impose RACT
under part D will be made separately, in an action reviewing those
rules pursuant to the requirements of part D. This suffices, in the
case of Utah, to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.

B. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and
operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to ``(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air
quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the
Administrator.''
    As discussed in Utah's submission, the UDEQ periodically submits a
Quality Management Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan to the
EPA. These plans cover procedures to monitor and analyze data. As part
of the monitoring SIP, Utah submits an Annual Monitoring Network Plan
(AMNP) each year for the EPA's approval.
    A comprehensive AMNP, intended to fully meet the federal
requirements, was submitted to the EPA by Utah on July 3, 2019 and
subsequently approved by the EPA.\10\ Utah's SIP-approved regulations
provide for the design and operation of its monitoring network,
reporting of data obtained from the monitors, and annual network review
including notification to the EPA of any changes, and public
notification of exceedances of NAAQS. As described in its submission,
Utah operates a comprehensive monitoring network, including ozone
monitoring, compiles and analyzes collected data, and submits the data
to the EPA's Air Quality System on a quarterly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Utah AMNP Approval 2019.docx in the docket for this
action. Additionally, Utah's AMNPs can be found at http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/network/review.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this information, we are proposing to approve the Utah SIP
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.

C. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources

    To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the
State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment New Source
Review (NSR), and minor NSR permitting programs that are adequate to
implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this action,
the EPA is not evaluating nonattainment-related provisions, such as the
nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. The EPA is
evaluating the State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act,
and the State's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).
    The State's submissions for the 2015 ozone infrastructure
requirements cite SIP section I (Legal Authority), which provides for
enforcement of applicable laws, regulations, and standards, including
injunctive relief, and also provides authority to prevent construction,
modification, or operation of any stationary source at any location
where emissions from such source will prevent the attainment or
maintenance of a national standard or interfere with PSD requirements.
PSD Requirements
    With respect to Element (C), the EPA interprets the CAA to require
each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or
revised NAAQS demonstrating that the air agency has a complete PSD
permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated
NSR pollutants. The requirements for Element (J) in relation to a
comprehensive PSD permitting program are the same as the requirements
with respect to Element (C).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The ``Prong 3'' requirements of Element (D)(i)(II) may be
satisfied in part by demonstrating that the air agency has a
complete PSD permitting program that correctly addresses all
regulated NSR pollutants. Our explanation of how the state has
satisfied the Prong 3 requirements is below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah has shown that it has a PSD program in place that covers all
regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). SIP
section VIII (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) applies to all
air pollutants regulated under the CAA. Utah implements the PSD program
by, for the most part, incorporating by reference the Federal PSD
program located in 40 CFR 52.21 as it existed on a specific date. On
April 13, 2020, we proposed to approve portions of a Utah SIP revision
revising the date of incorporation by reference of the Federal PSD
program to July 1, 2018.\12\ With this Utah SIP revision, the Utah SIP
now generally reflects all changes to PSD requirements that the EPA has
promulgated through the revised date of incorporation by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Proposed Rule, Revisions to the Utah Division of
Administrative Rules, 85 FR 14606 (April 13, 2020). We did not
receive any comments on our proposed approval and anticipate
finalizing that approval before any final action on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, the EPA is proposing to approve Utah's SIP
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part
C of the Act.
Minor NSR Requirements
    The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act.\13\ Since approval of the minor NSR
program, the State and the EPA have relied on the program to assure
that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting
programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Utah's minor NSR program, as approved into the SIP, covers the
construction and modification of stationary sources of regulated NSR
pollutants, including PM2.5, lead, and ozone and its
precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Final Rule, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Utah; Revisions to Utah Administrative Code--
Permit: New and Modified Sources, 79 FR 7072, 7076 (July 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's infrastructure SIP for the
2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the
enforcement,

modification, and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved.

D. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) consists of four separate elements, or
``prongs.'' CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (prong
1), and adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state (prong 2). CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will interfere with any other state's
required measures to prevent significant deterioration of its air
quality (prong 3), and adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which
will interfere with any other state's required measures to protect
visibility (prong 4). This proposed action will not address the prongs
1, 2, and 4 portions of the Utah 2015 ozone infrastructure SIP. We will
act on these portions of Utah's infrastructure SIP in a separate
rulemaking action.
Prong 3: Interference With PSD Measures
    As to in-state sources subject to PSD permitting, the prong 3 (PSD)
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(II) may be met for all NAAQS by
a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new
major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a
comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that
applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the
requirements of the EPA's PSD implementation rule(s).\14\ As discussed
above in connection with Element (C), Utah has provided that
confirmation by demonstrating that it has a federally approved PSD
program, current as of the most recent revisions to 40 CFR 52.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 2013 Memo at 31 (``This is because in order to be
approved by the EPA, a major source PSD permitting program would
need to fully consider source impacts on air quality in other
states.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In-state sources that are not subject to PSD permitting--that is,
in-state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the
pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a
nonattainment area for a NAAQS related to those particular pollutants--
may also have the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or
unclassifiable area of another state. One way a state may satisfy prong
3 with respect to these sources is by citing the air agency's EPA-
approved nonattainment NSR provisions addressing all pollutants for
which the state has designated nonattainment areas. Utah has a SIP-
approved nonattainment NSR program \15\ which ensures regulation of
major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas, and
therefore we find that this satisfies prong 3 with regard to this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Final Rule, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to Nonattainment
Permitting Regulations, 84 FR 35831 (July 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the applicable prong 3 requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and International Transport Provisions
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions
ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement). CAA section 126 requires notification to neighboring states
of potential impacts from a new or modified major stationary source and
specifies how a state may petition the EPA when a major source or group
of stationary sources in a state is thought to contribute to certain
pollution problems in another state. CAA section 115 governs the
process for addressing air pollutants emitted in the United States that
cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country.
    To address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Utah states that no
sources within the State are the subject of an active finding under CAA
section 126 with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and that there are no
final findings under CAA section 115 against Utah with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS. In the assessing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), we
reviewed the information presented by Utah in its 2015 ozone
infrastructure SIP submission, as well as relevant portions of the EPA-
approved Utah SIP. As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Utah's SIP-
approved PSD program requires major new or modified sources to provide
notice to states whose air quality may be impacted by the emissions of
sources subject to PSD.\16\ This suffices to meet the notice
requirement of section 126(a). Utah also has no pending obligations
under sections 126(c) or 115(b) of the CAA. Therefore, the Utah
infrastructure SIP currently meets the requirements of those sections.
For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to approve the Utah SIP as
fully meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Final Rule, Approval, Disapproval, and Promulgation of
Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; Revisions to New Source
Review Rules, 76 FR 41712 (July 15, 2011) (approving incorporation
of most 40 CFR 52.21 requirements into state program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each state to provide necessary
assurances that it will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority
under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any
provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion
thereof). Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to comply with
the requirements respecting state boards under CAA section 128. Section
110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires each state to ``provide necessary assurances
that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government,
agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any [SIP]
provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such [SIP] provision.''
    The provisions in Chapter 2 of Title 19 of the Utah Code and Utah
SIP section I (Legal Authority) provide the UDAQ and the AQB adequate
authority to carry out SIP obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The State receives section 105 grant funds through its
Performance Partnership Grant, along with required state matching funds
to provide funding necessary to carry out Utah's SIP requirements (Utah
SIP section V, Resources). Utah's Performance Partnership Agreement
with the EPA documents that the State has the resources needed to carry
out agreed environmental program goals, measures, and commitments,
including developing and implementing appropriate SIPs for all areas of
the State. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on
current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. Furthermore, R307-414, Permits: Fees
for Approval Orders, requires the owner and operator of each new major
source or major modification to pay a fee sufficient to cover
reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon the notice of intent and
implementing and enforcing requirements placed on such source by any
approval order issued. Collectively, these rules and commitments
provide evidence that UDEQ has adequate

personnel, funding, and legal authority to carry out the State's
implementation plan and related issues.
    With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the regulations cited by
Utah in their submittals (Utah SIP section VI, Intergovernmental
Cooperation) also provide the necessary assurances that the State has
responsibility for adequate implementation of SIP provisions by local
governments. Therefore, we propose to approve Utah's SIP as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state's SIP to contain
provisions that comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA.
Section 128 contains two explicit requirements: (i) That ``any board or
body which approves permits or enforcement orders under [the CAA] shall
have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest
and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons
subject to permits or enforcement orders'' under the CAA; and (ii) that
``any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body
or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately
disclosed.''
    On February 14, 2006, EPA approved SIP section 1 (Legal Authority)
into the Utah SIP as codified in UAR R307-110-2.\17\ Utah SIP section 1
(Legal Authority) specifies certain requirements regarding the
composition of the State board and disclosure by its members of
potential conflicts of interest. Details on how this portion of the
Procedural Rules meet the requirements of section 128 are provided in
our April 26, 2016 proposal.\18\ In our August 2, 2016 final action, we
correspondingly approved Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for element (E)(ii).\19\ Section 128 is not NAAQS-specific, and
once the State has met the requirements of section 128, that is
sufficient for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all NAAQS.
Therefore, Utah's SIP continues to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We are proposing to approve the State's January 29,
2020 SIP submission as meeting the requirements of section 128 because
it continues to comply with the statutory requirements and is
consistent with the EPA's guidance recommendations concerning section
128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Final Rule, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Utah; Rule Recodification, 71 FR 7679, 7682
(February 14, 2006); 40 CFR 52.2320.
    \18\ See Proposed Rule, Promulgation of State Implementation
Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008
Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah, 81 FR 24525, 24531-
24532 (April 26, 2016).
    \19\ See Final Rule, Promulgation of State Implementation Plan
Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008
Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah, 81 FR 50626 (Aug. 2,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System

    Under section 110(a)(2)(F), the SIP must require, as may be
prescribed by the EPA: (i) The installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor
emissions from such sources; (ii) Periodic reports on the nature and
amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources; and
(iii) Correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission
limitations or standards established pursuant to the Act, which reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    In its submission, Utah includes reference to EPA-approved section
III (Source Surveillance) which describes the State's program of
periodic emissions testing, emissions inventories, plant inspections
and source monitoring.\20\Additionally, the State cites EPA-approved
SIP section II (Review of New and Modified Air Pollution Sources) and
SIP section VIII (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) as the
State's program for new or modified sources to submit plans to UDEQ
(and receive approval) prior to construction or modification of
stationary sources. Utah also cites UAR rules in its submission
(including R307-150, R307-165 and R307-170) that require certain large
sources to install and maintain continuous emission monitors to assure
compliance with emission limitations established in approval orders and
the SIP.\21\ In addition, Utah provides for monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for sources subject to minor and major
source permitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Utah 2015 Ozone Infrastructure SIP Submission, p. 15; see
40 CFR 52.2320.
    \21\ Utah 2015 Ozone Infrastructure SIP Submission, p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Utah is required to submit emissions data to the EPA
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the
Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified
the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory
System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants
and their associated precursors--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and volatile organic
compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous
air pollutants. Utah made its latest update to the NEI in November
2019. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where
necessary, and releases it to the general public through the website
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
    Based on the analysis above, we propose to approve the Utah SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.

G. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs to
``provide for authority comparable to that in [CAA Section 303] and
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.'' Under CAA
section 303, the Administrator has authority to file suit to
immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the
environment. If it is not practicable to assure prompt protection by
filing suit, then the Administrator has authority to issue temporary
administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the
environment. Those orders can be extended if the EPA subsequently files
a civil suit.
    In our April 2016 proposed Utah infrastructure SIP action, we
explained how Utah meets the requirement that the plan provide for
State authority comparable to that in CAA section 303.\22\ For the
reasons stated in the April 2016 document, we are proposing to approve
the State's submittal for this requirement of section 110(a)(2)(G) with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 81 FR at 24534 (proposing to approve Utah SIP as
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requirement to provide authority
comparable to that in CAA section 303); 81 FR 50626 (taking final
action on proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, each state must also have adequate contingency
plans adopted into the SIP to implement the air agency's emergency
episode authority. This can be done by

submitting a plan that meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part
51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS, if the NAAQS is covered by those
regulations. Evaluating Utah's plan in our 2016 infrastructure SIP
action, we found that Utah's air pollution emergency rules, consistent
with the subpart H requirements, address ozone (as well as several
other pollutants); establish stages of episode criteria; provide for
public announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to
exist; and specify emission control actions to be taken at each episode
stage.\23\ The 2016 action concerned the 2008 ozone standard, but as to
ozone, Utah's SIP-approved criteria for emergency episodes remain
consistent with the Significant Harm Levels established in EPA's
regulations.\24\ Accordingly, Utah's contingency plans remain
approvable with respect to the 2015 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 81 FR 24525, 24533 (proposal); 81 FR 50626 (final
rule).
    \24\ Compare UAC R307-105-1 with 40 CFR 51.151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we propose approval of Utah's SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

H. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions

    Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision ``(i)
from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of
such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the
availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such
standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever
the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the
Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the
NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional
requirements'' under the Act.
    Utah SIP section I cites 19-2-104 (describing the powers of the Air
Quality Board) and 19-2-109 (the State's Air Conservation Act) and of
the Utah Code. We have previously found that these provisions give the
AQB sufficient authority to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(H), and find that the basis for that finding is still
valid.\25\ We therefore propose to approve Utah's SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 81 FR 24525, 24533-24534 (proposal); 81 FR 50626 (final
rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under
Part D

    There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) that are
not governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section
110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are due on nonattainment area plan schedules pursuant to
section 172 and the various pollutant-specific subparts 2 through 5 of
part D. These are submissions required by: (i) CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in
part D, Title I of the CAA; and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain
to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the
CAA. As a result, this action does not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I).

J. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With Government Officials,
Public Notification, PSD and Visibility Protection

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments and FLMs pursuant to CAA section
121. In addition, states must satisfy the requirements of CAA section
127 concerning measures to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in
an area, and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken
to prevent exceedances and of the ways for the public to participate in
air quality improvement efforts. Finally, as noted above, CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C,
Title I of the CAA related to PSD and visibility protection.
    In its submittals, the State cites SIP section I (Legal Authority)
adopting requirements for transportation consultation, SIP section VI
(Intergovernmental Cooperation), and SIP section XII (Transportation
Conformity Consultation) to meet the requirements of CAA section
121.\26\ The State has thereby demonstrated that it has the authority
and rules in place to provide a process of consultation with general
purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected
officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having
authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with
the requirements of CAA section 121. In its submission, Utah cites SIP
section XVI (Public Notification), which is the State's plan to report
monitored levels of emissions both daily and annually, which meets the
general requirements of CAA section 127 to notify the public when the
NAAQS have been exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Utah 2015 Ozone Infrastructure SIP Submission, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the section 110(a)(2)(J) requirement to address Part C's PSD
requirements, we have discussed the State's program above in connection
with section 110(a)(2)(C). As we have noted, the requirements for
Element (J) in relation to a comprehensive PSD permitting program are
the same as the requirements with respect to Element (C). Our proposed
approval of the State's submissions with respect to Element (C)
therefore applies to the PSD component of Element (J).
    Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility
and regional haze program requirements under Part C of the Act. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under Part C do not change. Thus, we
find that there are no newly applicable visibility requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective, and thus no
requirement for Utah to address the visibility component of Element (J)
in its infrastructure SIP.
    For these reasons, we propose to approve the Utah SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

K. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe
for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any
emissions of any NAAQS pollutant, and (ii) the submission, upon
request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the
Administrator. Applicable EPA requirements for air quality modeling for
criteria pollutants are found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, Guideline
on Air Quality Models.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In its most recent revision to appendix W, the EPA stated
that revised requirements must be ``integrated into the regulatory
processes of respective reviewing authorities and followed by
applicants by no later than January 17, 2018.'' Final Rule,
Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to
the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of
Approaches to Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter, 82 FR 5182
(Jan. 17, 2017). On April 13, 2020, we proposed to approve portions
of a Utah SIP revision that revised the date of incorporation by
reference for appendix W to comply with EPA's January 17, 2017
revisions to appendix W. See 85 FR 14606. As noted previously, we
did not receive any comments on our proposed approval and anticipate
that that approval will be final before any final action on this
proposal.

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

    In its submissions, Utah cites UAR rule R307-405-13, which
incorporates by reference the air quality model provisions of 40 CFR
52.21(l), which includes the air quality model requirements of appendix
W of 40 CFR part 51, pertaining to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models.\28\ Additionally, the State cites EPA-approved SIP section II
(Review of New and Modified Air Pollution Sources) and SIP section VIII
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration) as the State's program for
new or modified sources to submit plans to UDEQ (and receive approval)
prior to construction or modification of stationary sources. Utah's PSD
program incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21,
including the provision at 52.21(l)(1) requiring that estimates of
ambient air concentrations be based on applicable air quality models
specified in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, and the provision at
52.21(l)(2) requiring that modification or substitution of a model
specified in appendix W must be approved by the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Utah 2015 Ozone Infrastructure SIP Submission, p.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we propose to approve the Utah SIP as meeting the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 20015 ozone NAAQS.

L. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) provides that SIPs must require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit. Utah's SIP-
approved rules require the owner and operator of each new major source
or major modification to pay a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable
costs of reviewing and acting upon the notice of intent and
implementing and enforcing requirements placed on such source by any
approval order issued.\29\ Likewise, SIP section I (Legal Authority)
``identifies the statutory authority to charge a fee to major sources
to cover permit and enforcement expenses.'' \30\ Finally, the State's
submissions cite R307-415, which is the state regulation that provides
for collection of permitting fees under Utah's approved title V permit
program.\31\ As discussed in that approval, the State demonstrated that
the fees collected were sufficient to administer the program.\32\
Therefore, we propose to approve the submissions as supplemented by the
State for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See UAC rule R307-414, Permits: Fees for Approval Orders;
40 CFR 52.2320.
    \30\ See SIP Section I (Legal Authority), codified at UAC R307-
10-2; 40 CFR 52.2320.
    \31\ See Clean Air Act Final Full Approval of Operating Permits
Program; Approval of Construction Permit Program Under Section
112(l); State of Utah, 60 FR 30192 (June 8, 1995); 40 CFR 52.2320.
    \32\ Utah 2015 Ozone Infrastructure SIP Submission, p.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP. To satisfy this requirement, Utah
refers to SIP section VI (Intergovernmental Cooperation), codified at
R307-110-7. The provisions of this section require and provide
authority for public hearings, notice of hearings, public comment
periods, and the consultation and coordination between state and local
governments. The EPA most recently approved this rule on February 14,
2006.\33\ The rules and regulations cited by Utah provide for the
consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected
by the SIP; therefore, we are proposing to approve the Utah SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 71 FR 7679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    In this rulemaking, we are proposing approval for multiple elements
of the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for
Utah along with a proposed no action for three infrastructure elements
for Utah. Our proposed actions are contained in Table 1 below.
    The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's January 29, 2020 SIP
submission for the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) Prong 3,
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA is
proposing no action on (D)(i)(I) Prongs 1 and 2, and (D)(i)(II) Prong
4.
    In the table below, the key is as follows:
    A--Approve.
    D--Disapprove.
    NA--No Action.

  Table 1--Infrastructure Elements That the EPA Is Proposing To Act On
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     2015 Ozone NAAQS Infrastructure SIP Elements: Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures.............          A
(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System.............          A
(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures............          A
(D)(i)(I): Prong 1 Interstate Transport--significant                 NA
 contribution...............................................
(D)(i)(I): Prong 2 Interstate Transport--interference with           NA
 maintenance................................................
(D)(i)(II): Prong 3 Interstate Transport--prevention of               A
 significant deterioration..................................
(D)(i)(II): Prong 4 Interstate Transport--visibility........         NA
(D)(ii): Interstate and International Pollution Abatement...          A
(E): Adequate Resources.....................................          A
(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System....................          A
(G): Emergency Episodes.....................................          A
(H): Future SIP revisions...................................          A
(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public                   A
 Notification, PSD and Visibility Protection................
(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data..........................          A
(L): Permitting Fees........................................          A
(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities..          A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

    Dated: May 18, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-11182 Filed 5-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71150-71152]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28173]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73677; File No. SR-BATS-2014-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
11.24 of BATS Exchange, Inc.

November 24, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 17, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the

Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to re-number Rule 11.24, entitled
``Retail Order Attribution Program,'' as Rule 11.25.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com/, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to re-number Rule 11.24, entitled
``Retail Order Attribution Program,'' as Rule 11.25. The Exchange
recently adopted this rule to allow retail orders to be attributed as
such on Exchange data feeds.\5\ However, at the time such proposal was
filed, the Exchange was awaiting approval of a separate filing to add
an opening process for non-Exchange-listed securities, which rule was
also numbered 11.24. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to re-number
the rule related to its Retail Order Attribution Program as 11.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73237 (September 26,
2014), 79 FR 59537 (October 2, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\6\ and further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\
because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the correction of this numbering error will
contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by
helping to avoid confusion with respect to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition as it is not a competitive proposal
and does not reflect any substantive modification to the Exchange's
operations.

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

    Not applicable.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\ Because
the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow
the Exchange to immediately correct the numbering error described
above. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2014-058 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2014-058. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
BATS-2014-058, and should be submitted on or before December 22, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28173 Filed 11-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 46)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12303-12305]
[DOCID:fr07mr08-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0258; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-22-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Models
206L, L-1, L-3, L-4, and 407 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
specified Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) helicopters. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
Aviation Authority of Canada with whom we have a bilateral agreement
states in the MCAI:

    Horizontal stabilizers part numbers 206-023-119-167 and 407-023-
801-109 may have manufacturing flaws on the inside surface of the
upper and/or lower skin at the tailboom attachment inserts. These
flaws may result in cracking of the skin and failure of the
horizontal stabilizer.

    The manufacturer's service information states that in addition to
cracks, the horizontal stabilizer may have deformation or debonding
around and between the inserts. The proposed AD would require actions
that are intended to address all these unsafe conditions.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817) 222-
5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Streamlined Issuance of AD

    The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance
of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt
MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce
safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD
issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure
Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our
technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct
unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.
    This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service
information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to
correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from
the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language
principles.

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0258;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-22-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued an MCAI in the form of Canadian Airworthiness Directive No. CF-
2007-03, dated March 27, 2007 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for these Canadian-certificated
products. The MCAI states:

    Horizontal stabilizers part numbers 206-023-119-167 and 407-023-
801-109 may have manufacturing flaws on the inside surface of the
upper and/or lower skin at the tailboom attachment inserts. These
flaws may result in cracking of the skin and failure of the
horizontal stabilizer.

    The manufacturer's service information states that in addition to
cracks, the horizontal stabilizer may have deformation or debonding
around and between the inserts. The proposed AD would require actions
that are intended to address all these unsafe conditions.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and
service information in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Transport Canada has issued Alert Service Bulletins 206L-06-141 and
407-06-72, both dated September 12, 2006. The actions described in the
MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that
identified in the service information.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, we have been
notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type
designs.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. However, we have changed the
alternate compliance time from May 9, 2007, to within 30 days, and we
have not mandated replacing the horizontal stabilizer by a certain
date. In making this change, we do not intend to differ substantively
from the information provided in the MCAI.
    Differences are highlighted in the ``Differences Between the FAA AD
and the MCAI'' section in the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 59 horizontal
stabilizers (27-206L and 32-407 models) on about 1156 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about:
     2.5 work hours to determine if the affected part is
installed on the helicopter,
     4 work hours to perform the initial and 600-hour recurring
inspection, and
     8 work hours to remove and replace an affected part.
     The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
     Required parts would cost about $20,173 for the Model 206L
series and $25,669 for the Model 407 helicopters.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators would be $1,663,519, assuming operators of the entire
fleet would need to determine whether they have an affected part
installed; the 59 helicopters with the affected parts would undergo the
initial inspection; 30 helicopters with the affected part would undergo
one recurring 600-hour inspection; and all 59 affected parts would be
replaced.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Docket No. FAA-2008-0258;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-22-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 7, 2008.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4
with horizontal stabilizer, part number (P/N) 206-023-119-167, and
Model 407 with horizontal stabilizer, P/N 407-023-801-109,
installed, certificated in any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Horizontal stabilizers part numbers 206-023-119-167 and 407-023-
801-109 may have manufacturing flaws on the inside surface of the
upper and/or lower skin at the tailboom attachment inserts. These
flaws may result in cracking of the skin and failure of the
horizontal stabilizer.
    The manufacturer's service information states that in addition
to cracks, the horizontal stabilizer may have deformation or
debonding around and between the inserts. The proposed AD would
require actions that are intended to address all these unsafe
conditions.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 30 days,
whichever occurs first, unless done previously.
    (1) Determine whether you have an affected serial numbered
horizontal stabilizer installed by removing the elevators from the
horizontal stabilizer. Access the horizontal stabilizer
identification tag containing the horizontal stabilizer serial
number as shown in Figure 1 and remove the elevators by following
the Accomplishment Instructions, Part I, of Bell Helicopter Textron
Canada (BHTC) Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-06-141, dated
September 12, 2006, applicable to the Model 206L series helicopter
(206L ASB) or BHTC ASB No. 407-06-72, dated September 12, 2006,
applicable to the Model 407 helicopters (407 ASB).
    (2) If the serial number on the identification tag is a serial
number listed in Table 1 of the 206L ASB or 407 ASB, inspect the
horizontal stabilizer as follows:
    (i) Using a 10x or higher magnifying glass, inspect the
horizontal stabilizer for a crack or deformation around the areas of
the inserts. Also, using a tap test method, inspect for debonding
between the inserts by following the Accomplishment Instructions,
Part II, of either the 206L ASB or 407 ASB, as applicable.
    (ii) If you find a crack, deformation, or debonding, replace the
horizontal stabilizer with an airworthy horizontal stabilizer that
does not have a serial number listed in Table 1 of the 206L ASB or
407 ASB. Replace the horizontal stabilizer by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, Part III, of either the 206L ASB or the
407 ASB, as applicable.
    (iii) If you do not find a crack, deformation, or debonding,
thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or during each
annual inspection, whichever occurs first, repeat the inspection
required by paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this AD.
    (f) Replacing any horizontal stabilizer containing a serial
number listed in Table 1 of 206L ASB or 407 ASB with a horizontal
stabilizer that does not contain such a serial number by following
the Accomplishment Instructions, Part III, of either the 206L ASB or
407 ASB, as applicable, constitutes terminating actions for the
requirements of this AD.

Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI

    (g) The MCAI requires compliance ``within the next 100 hours air
time but no later than 9 May 2007.'' This AD requires compliance
within the next 100 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first,
unless done previously. Also, the MCAI requires replacing the
horizontal stabilizer by September 30, 2008, and we have not
mandated a compliance time for replacing the horizontal stabilizer.

Subject

    (h) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code: 5510
Horizontal Stabilizer Structure.

Other Information

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort
Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817) 222-
5961.
    (2) Airworthy Product: Use only FAA-approved corrective actions.
Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved
by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent) if the
State of Design has an appropriate bilateral agreement with the
United States. You are required to assure the product is airworthy
before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (j) MCAI Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive No. CF-2007-
03, dated March 27, 2007, contain related information.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 28, 2008.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-4495 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62797-62798]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC11-122-000.
    Applicants: TPW Petersburg, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of TPW
Petersburg, LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2869-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35: 9-30-11 Module B, Cross Border Out
Compliance II to be effective 11/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2657-001.
    Applicants: Milford Wind Corridor Phase II, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material Change in Status by
Milford Wind Corridor Phase II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4709-000.
    Applicants: Texzon Utilities, Ltd.
    Description: Texzon Utilities, Ltd. submits tariff filing per 35.1:
Texzon Utilities Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4710-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Avista Corp NITSA filing to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4711-000.
    Applicants: R&R Energy, Inc.
    Description: R&R Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.1: R & R
Baseline Tariff to be effective 9/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4712-000.
    Applicants: GGBB Energy, Inc.
    Description: GGBB Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.1: GGBB
Baseline Tariff to be effective 9/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4713-000.
    Applicants: NCSU Energy, Inc.
    Description: NCSU Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.1: NCSU
Energy Baseline Tariff to be effective 9/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4716-000.
    Applicants: Energy Alternatives, Inc.
    Description: Energy Alternatives, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.1: FERC Baseline Electric Tariff to be effective 9/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4717-000.
    Applicants: International Paper Company.
    Description: International Paper Company submits tariff filing per
35.1: International Paper Company MBR Filing 2011-09-30 to be effective
9/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4718-000.
    Applicants: Gateway Energy Marketing.
    Description: Gateway Energy Marketing submits tariff filing per
35.1: Gateway Market-Based Rate Baseline Filing to be effective 9/30/
2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4719-000.
    Applicants: Continental Electric Cooperative Service
    Description: Continental Electric Cooperative Services, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.1: CCS Market Based Rate Filing to be
effective 9/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4720-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:
BPA Agreement for Work at Hat Rock Switching Station to be effective
11/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4721-000.
    Applicants: New Hope Power Partnership.
    Description: New Hope Power Partnership submits tariff filing per
35.1: New Hope FERC Electric Tariff Baseline Filing to be effective 9/
30/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4722-000.
    Applicants: Allied Energy Resources Corporation.
    Description: Allied Energy Resources Corporation submits tariff
filing per 35.1: Base line filing to be effective 10/3/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4723-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: LGIA WDAT SERV AG SCE-Wellhead Power Delano
LLC, Wellhead Power Delano Proj to be effective 10/3/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4724-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-09-30--CAPX--Fargo--
Phase-2--CMA--306--0.1.0 to be effective 8/12/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4725-000.
    Applicants: APN Starfirst, LP.
    Description: APN Starfirst, LP submits tariff filing per 35.1: APN
Starfirst, LP,

Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective 9/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4726-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W3-078; Original Service Agreement No. 3063
to be effective 9/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 21, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES11-43-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Supplement to Application of El Paso Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110930-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF11-515-000.
    Applicants: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
    Description: Form 556 of Air Products LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2011.
    Accession Numbers: 20110929-5017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 20, 2011.

    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
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: September 30, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26079 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52336-52337]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18605]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-65-000]

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Petition
for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on August 18, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2019), New York Independent System
Operator, Inc (Petitioner), hereby submits a petition for declaratory
order seeking confirmation that Transmission Owners in New York possess
a federal right of first refusal to build, own, and recover the costs
of upgrades to their transmission facilities that is permitted under
Order No. 1000,\1\ as more fully explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by
Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000,
136 FERC ] 61,051 (2011) (Order No. 1000), order on reh'g and
clarification, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ] 61,132 (2012) (Order No.
1000-A), order on reh'g and clarification, 141 FERC ] 61,044 (2012)
(Order No. 1000-B). For convenience, unless otherwise specified,
references in this filing to Order No. 1000 should be understood to
encompass Order Nos. 1000, 1000-A, and 1000-B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests

and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 17, 2020.

    Dated: August 19, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18605 Filed 8-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P