[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35181-35189]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13979]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0395; FRL-9823-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Utah; Revisions to Utah Administrative Code--Permit: New and Modified
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Utah on September 15, 2006. The September 15, 2006 revisions contain
new, amended and renumbered rules in Utah Administrative Code (UAC)
Title R-307 that pertain to the issuance of Utah air quality permits.
The September 15, 2006 revisions supersedes, in its entirety, and
replaces an October 9, 1998 submittal that initially revised provisions
in Utah's air quality permit program. In this action, we are proposing
to approve all but four of the SIP revisions in the September 15, 2006
submittal. We are proposing to disapprove the State's rules, R307-401-7
(Public Notice), R307-401-9(b) and portions of (c) (Small Source
Exemption), R307-401-

12 (Reduction in Air Contaminants), and R307-410-5 (Documentation of
Ambient Air Impacts for Hazardous Air Pollutants). We are also
proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove R307-410-6
(Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques). This action is being taken
under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2013-0395, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2013-0395. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I. General
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    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 be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. What authorities apply to EPA's proposed action?
V. EPA's Analysis of Proposed Approval Actions on SIP Revisions
VI. EPA's Analysis of Proposed Disapproval Actions on SIP Revisions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
    (v) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
    (vi) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (vii) The initials UAC mean or refer to the Utah Administrative
Code.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

    Several revisions to Utah's minor source permitting program were
originally submitted to EPA on October 9, 1998. The SIP revisions
covered the following three areas of the State's rules: (1) R307-1-1
(Forward and Definitions); (2) R307-1-3 (Control of Installations); and
R307-15-6(5) (Permit Content).\1\ On September 20, 1999, Utah submitted
a revision that renumbered the regulatory provisions in the October 9,
1998 submittal. On September 15, 2006, Utah submitted additional
revisions to the minor source permitting program and some of the rules
were renumbered a second time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the SIP submittal contains numerous rules, the three-
page Enclosure to the Governor's cover letter identifies these three
specific rule amendments that were submitted to EPA for review and
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A cross-walk table comparing the provisions from the October 9,
1998, September 20, 1999, and September 15, 2006 submittals is included
in the docket for this action. The September 15, 2006 submittal
supersedes and replaces the October 9, 1998 submittal in its entirety
and partially supersedes and replaces the September 20, 1999 submittal,
as outlined in the cross-walk table. As explained below, we approved a
subsequent revision of the regulations contained in Definitions
Section, and therefore we are not taking action on R307-1-1 in this
action. See 73 FR 51222 (September 2, 2008).
    Utah's September 15, 2006, submittal covers four groups of rules:
(1) Revised R307-101-2 (Definitions), which we previously acted on in
73 FR 51222; (2) added a new section R307-401 (Notice of Intent and
Approval Order); \2\ (3) added a new section R307-410 (Permits:
Emission Impact Analysis); \3\ and (4) renumbered rules in State rule
section R307-413 (Permit: Exemptions and Special Provisions) to R307-
401. The permit exemptions in Utah's October 9, 1998, submittal (R307-
1-3.1.7) were renumbered by the State to R307-413 in Utah's September
20, 1999, submittal. In the September 15, 2006 submittal, some of the
rules which were renumbered to R307-413 were then renumbered a second
time by the State to R307-401. The purpose of the State's SIP actions
in the September 15, 2006 submittal was to separate minor source
permitting and modeling requirements in Title R307 from major source
permitting and modeling requirements in Title R307. The September 15,
2006, submittal supersedes and replaces Utah's October 9, 1998,
submittal; thus, by acting on the September 15, 2006, submittal we are
also concurrently acting on the October 9, 1998 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The regulations impacted in the submittal from the Notice of
Intent and Approval Order section include the following: R307-401-1,
R307-401-2, R307-401-3, R307-401-4, R307-401-5, R307-401-6, R307-
401-7, R307-401-8, R307-401-9, R307-401-10, R307-401-11, R307-401-
12, R307-401-13, R307-401-14, R307-401-15, R307-401-16, R307-401-17,
R307-401-18, R307-401-19, and R307-401-20.
    \3\ The regulations impacted in the submittal from the Permits:
Emission Impact Analysis section include the following: R307-410-1,
R307-410-2, R307-410-3, R307-410-4, R307-410-5, and R307-410-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What action is EPA taking?

    The rules outlined below represent the rules submitted by Utah on
September 15, 2006. These rules supersede and replace corresponding
citations from Utah's September 20, 1999 and October 9, 1998 submittals
(See Table 1--Rulemaking Crosswalk in docket).

R307-101-2 (Definitions)

    In Utah's October 9, 1998 submittal, the State requested the
addition of the definitions ``Air Quality Related Values'' and
``Carcinogen'' in R307-1-1 (Forward and Definitions) to the SIP. In
Utah's September 20, 1999 submittal, R307-1-1 was renumbered to R307-
101-2. The September 15, 2006, submittal requested the deletion of two
definitions in R307-101-2 (``Air Quality Related Values'' and
``Significant''. In 73 FR 51222 (September 2, 2008), EPA incorporated
by reference UAC R307-101-2 as adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on
February 6, 2008, effective on February 8, 2008. Therefore, our 73 FR
51222 action superseded and replaced R307-1-1, as submitted on October
9, 1998, and R307-101-2, as submitted on September 15, 2006. We
approved the 2008 version of the rule into Utah's SIP on September 2,
2008 and incorporated it by reference into the Code of Federal
Regulations. See 73 FR 51222.'' Thus, in this proposal, we do not need
to act on the September 15, 2006 version of R307-101-2. (see Table 1--
Rulemaking cross-walk in docket).

R307-401 (Permit: Notice of Intent and Approval Order)

    We are proposing to approve new rule R307-401-1 (Purpose). This
rule explains that the R307-401 rules establish the application and
permit requirements for new and modified sources. R307-401-1 states
there are additional permitting requirements for larger sources or
sources located in nonattainment or maintenance areas. The rule also
states the exemptions listed in R307-401 do not affect the
applicability of other permitting rules in the SIP.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-2 (Definitions). We are
proposing to approve these definitions because they are consistent with
applicable federal rules, as described in Table 2--Definitions Cross-
walk. Additionally, the definitions have either been renumbered from
prior State rules or contain approvable changes to the definition. (see
Table 2--Definitions Crosswalk in docket).
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-3 (Applicability). This rule
outlines: (1) what type of activities are applicable to the
requirements in R307-401; (2) other sections in R307 which may
establish additional permitting requirements; (3) how exemptions in
R307-401 affect applicability of other requirements in R307; and (4)
how exemptions in other sections in R307 affect applicability of
requirements in R307-401. R307-401-3 (2)(a) and (b) contains specific
safeguards that clarify that sources may also have additional
permitting requirements in other permitting rules in the SIP. This rule
is particularly significant because it clarifies that sources which are
exempt in sections R307-401-9 through R307-401-17 cannot circumvent
major NSR requirements.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-4 (General Requirements).
R307-401-4 applies to all new and modified sources, including sources
that are exempt from the requirements to obtain an approval order. This
rule requires: (1) control apparatus installed at the source shall be
adequately and properly maintained; (2) under certain circumstances,
the executive secretary may require an exempted source to submit a
notice of intent and obtain an approval order in accordance with R307-
401-5 through R307-401-8; and (3) with certain exceptions, fuel
combustion devices shall be replaced with low oxide of nitrogen
burners. We are proposing to approve R307-401-4(1) and (3) because they
comply with 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b). Additionally, R307-401-4(2)
complies with 40 CFR 51.160(b) because it provides a means by which the
State or local agency can prevent an otherwise exempted source from
violating applicable portions of the control strategy or interfering
with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-5 (Notice of Intent). The
requirements in R307-401-5 contain a list of information that shall be
included with a notice of intent submitted by any person to the State.
The rule clarifies that the notice of intent requirements do not apply
to R307-401-9 through R307-

401-17. The notice of Intent requirements outlined in R307-401-5(1) and
(2)(a)-(k) meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51. 160(a), (c) and (e)
because (1) the procedures allow the State or a local agency to
determine whether the project will result in a violation of applicable
portions of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS; (2) the procedures provide for the submission
to include: information on the nature and amounts of emissions to be
emitted; the location, design, construction and operation of the
facility, building, structure, or installation necessary for the State
or a local agency to make a determination whether the project will
result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS; and (3) the
procedures provide that the owner must identify the types and sizes of
facilities, buildings, structures, or installations which will be
subject to review.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-6 (Review Period). R307-401-6
contains the deadlines and procedures applicable to the State in
processing a notice of intent. R307-401-6(2)(b) meets the requirement
of 40 CFR 51.160(a) because the rule provides the State or a local
agency the opportunity to determine whether the project will result in
a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. R307-401-6(2)(b) also
meets the requirement of 40 CFR 51. 160(b), because the rule provides a
means for the State or a local agency can prevent an exempted source
from violating applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfering with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    We are proposing to disapprove R307-401-7 (Public Notice). R307-
401-7 revised Utah's public notice procedures to allow for a 10-day
public comment period for an approval or disapproval order issued under
R307-401-8. The rule allows for the public comment period to be
increased to 30 days under certain conditions. We note that the public
comment period for an approval or disapproval order currently in Utah's
federally approved SIP is 30 days. (See R307-1-3.1.3) Federal
regulations for Public Availability of Information found at 40 CFR
51.161(b)(2) require at a minimum a 30-day public comment period for
the permitting of a source, including minor source permits. In
addition, the 30-day comment period is important to allow adequate
opportunity for comment by other affected states, federal agencies, and
the public.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-8 (Approval Order). This rule
describes the conditions that must be met before the State will issue
and approval order. R307-401-8 is consistent with the Federal
requirements located in 40 CFR 51.160(a) because the rule provides the
State or a local agency the opportunity to determine whether the
project will result in a violation of applicable portions of the
control strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS. The rule is also consistent with 40 CFR 51.160(b) because the
rule provides a means for the State or a local agency can prevent an
otherwise exempted source from violating applicable portions of the
control strategy or interfering with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS. In addition, R307-401-8 lists additional safeguards to clarify
that sources may also have additional permitting requirements in other
State regulations. R307-401-8(b)(i) and (ii) is particularly
significant because they prohibit sources from circumventing major NSR
requirements.
    We are proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
R307-401-9 (Small Source Exemptions). R307-401-9 creates a de minimis
exemption threshold from the requirement to submit a notice of intent
and apply for an approval order prior to initiation of construction,
modification, or relocation. There currently is no de minimis exemption
threshold from notice of intent and approval order requirements
approved into the Utah SIP. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA
cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP),
as defined in section 171 of the CAA, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. The State submitted a CAA 110(l) demonstration
of noninterference (see docket).
    R307-401-9 provides that a stationary source is exempt from the
requirement to obtain an approval order in R307-401-5 through 8 if the
following conditions are met: (1) Actual emissions are less than five
tons per year of any criteria pollutant; (2) actual emissions are less
than 500 pounds per year of any hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or less
than 2000 pounds per year of any combination of HAPs; and (3) actual
emissions are less than 500 pounds per year of air contaminant not
included above and are less than 2000 pounds per year of any
combination of air contaminant not included in above.
    We are proposing to approve all of R307-401-9, except for paragraph
(b) and the portions of paragraph (c) that reference paragraph (b). We
are proposing to disapprove R307-401-9(b) and the phrase ``or (b)'' in
paragraph (c) because EPA lacks authority in an action on a SIP
revision under CAA section 110 to approve provisions addressing
hazardous air pollutants. Thus we are proposing to disapprove these
specific provisions. We are proposing to approve all of R307-401-9,
except for paragraph (b) and the portions of paragraph (c) that
reference paragraph (b) because:
    R307-401-9 contains a safeguard that a source shall no longer be
exempt and is required to submit a notice of intent if its actual
emissions exceed the thresholds listed in R307-401-9(1)(a). In
addition, sources receiving an exemption under R307-401-9 are still
subject to the requirements located in: (1) R307-401(2)(a), which
prevents exempt sources from circumventing major NSR requirements; (2)
R307-401-4, which contains the general permitting requirements; (3)
State permitting area source regulations under R307-201 through 207;
and (4) R307 section 300 that contains the State permitting
nonattainment and maintenance area regulations (see docket, 110(l)
demonstration of noninterference). The exemption thresholds and the
additional safeguards just described ensure NAAQS protection and thus
meet the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160.
    EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 do not require the issuance of a
permit for the construction or modification of minor sources, but only
that the SIP include a procedure to prevent the construction of a
source or modification that would violate the SIP control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    EPA recognizes that, under the applicable federal regulations,
states have broad discretion to determine the scope of their minor NSR
programs as needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS. A state may tailor
its minor NSR requirements as long as they are consistent with the
requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR part 51.160--164. States
may also provide a rationale for why the rules are at least as
stringent as the 40 CFR part 51 requirements where the revisions are
different from those in 40 CFR part 51.
    The State has shown through their CAA 110(l) demonstration that
while sources below the de minimis exemption permit thresholds in R307-
401-9 are no longer required to undergo a case-by-case review and
receive an

approval order, they are still regulated by other rules within R307-401
and underlying statewide area source rules in Title R307.
    In addition, the de minimis level permit threshold in R307-401-9,
which has been implemented as a state-approved rule since 1996, is
comparable to the de minimis level threshold in many of the federally
enforceable minor NSR programs in surrounding states such as Idaho,
Montana, and North Dakota, and for sources covered by EPA's tribal NSR
rule for sources located in Indian Country.
    EPA notes that we have approved several similar de minimis
exemption provisions in other states as follows:
    a. On January 16, 2003, EPA approved a minor NSR program for the
State of Idaho (68 FR 2217). This rule allows changes to be considered
exempt from permitting if the source's uncontrolled potential emissions
are less than ten percent (10%) of the NSR significant emissions rate.
For example: 1.5 tons per year for PM10, 4 tons per year for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
and sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 10 tons per year for carbon
monoxide (CO). EPA determined in this instance that states may exempt
from minor NSR certain categories of changes based on de minimis or
administrative necessity grounds in accordance with the criteria set
out in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979). De
minimis sources are presumed to not have an impact and the state has
determined that their emissions would not prevent or interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS, even within nonattainment areas.
    b. On February 13, 2012, EPA approved a five tons per year
potential emissions level as a de minimis threshold to be exempt from
permitting requirements in the State of Montana (77 FR 7531). In this
final rulemaking, EPA determined this de minimis threshold met the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), 40 CFR part 51.160 and CAA
section 110(l).
    c. On July 1, 2011, EPA finalized the tribal NSR rule (76 FR
38748). In this rulemaking, EPA established de minimis thresholds at
which sources are to be exempt from permitting requirements for each
regulated NSR pollutant (see 40 CFR 49.153--Table 1) utilizing an
allowable-to-allowable applicability test. EPA stated in this
rulemaking that these threshold levels represent a reasonable balance
between environmental protection and economic growth (76 FR 38758). EPA
further recognized in designing the tribal NSR rule, that the
overarching requirement is ensuring NAAQS protection (76 FR 38756) as
described in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). In order to determine that the
sources below minor NSR permit thresholds in 40 CFR 49.153--Table 1
would be inconsequential to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, EPA
performed a national source distribution analysis (see 71 FR 48702). In
this analysis, EPA looked at size distribution of existing sources
across the country. Using the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which
includes the most comprehensive inventory of existing U.S. stationary
point sources that is available, EPA determined how many of these
sources fall below the proposed minor NSR thresholds (see 71 FR 48702,
Table 2). For each pollutant, EPA found that only around 1 percent (or
less) of total emissions would be exempt from review under the minor
NSR program. At the same time, the thresholds would promote an
effective balance between environmental protection and source burden
because anywhere from 42 percent to 76 percent of sources (depending on
the pollutant) would be too small to be subject to preconstruction
review (76 FR 38758). Utah, which contains areas of Indian country that
are subject to the permitting thresholds in the tribal NSR rule, has
established generally lower exemption levels than those in the tribal
NSR rule. In addition, as EPA explained in the tribal NSR rule, this
will ``allow us to begin leveling the playing field with the
surrounding state programs and will result in a more cost-effective
program by reducing the burden on sources and reviewing authorities.''
(see 76 FR 38758).
    d. On May 27, 2008, EPA approved a 25 tons per year actual
emissions level as a de minimis threshold for fossil fuel burning
equipment to be exempt from permitting requirements in the State of
North Dakota, and a 5 ton per year actual emissions level as a de
minimis threshold for any internal combustion engine, or multiple
engines to be exempt from permitting requirements (73 FR 30308). EPA
determined the revision will not adversely impact the NAAQS or PSD
increments (73 FR 30308).
    e. On February 1, 2006, EPA approved a 5 tons per year actual
emissions level as a de minimis threshold to be exempt from permitting
requirements in the State of North Carolina (see 61 FR 3584).
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-9 because: (1) R307-401-9 has
safeguards which prevent circumvention of NSR requirements; (2) the
State's 110(l) demonstration shows sources are still regulated by other
rules within R307-401 and underlying statewide area source rules in
Title R307; (3) R307-401-9 is similar to the de minimis level threshold
in many of the federally enforceable minor NSR programs in surrounding
states and around the country; and (4) Utah, which contains areas of
Indian country that are subject to the permitting thresholds in the
tribal NSR rule, has established generally lower exemption levels than
those in the tribal NSR rule.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-10 (Source Category
Exemptions). R307-401-10, as submitted on September 20, 1999, was
originally titled ``Low Oxides of Nitrogen Burner Technology''. In
Utah's September 15, 2006 submittal, this was deleted and moved to
R307-325; R307-401-10 was then replaced with ``Source Category
Exemptions'' (see Table 1--Rulemaking Crosswalk).
    Sources receiving an exemption under R307-401-10 are still subject
to the requirements located in: (1) R307-401(2)(a), which prevents
exempt sources from circumventing major NSR requirements; (2) R307-401-
4, which contains the general permitting requirements; (3) R307-201
through 207, which contains the State permitting area source
regulations; and (4) R307 section 300, which contains the State
permitting nonattainment and maintenance area regulations (see docket,
110(l) demonstration of noninterference). The exemption thresholds and
the additional regulatory safeguards just described ensure NAAQS
protection and thus meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR
51.160.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-11 (Replacement-in-Kind
Equipment). This rule applies to existing process equipment or
pollution control equipment covered by an existing approval order or
SIP requirement. Before equipment may be replaced using the procedures
in this rule and in lieu of filing a notice of intent, R307-401-
11(2)(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source to
submit written notification to the executive secretary. This
notification contains a description of the replacement-in-kind
equipment including the control capability of any control apparatus and
demonstrations that the conditions in R307-401-11(1) are met. One of
these conditions is R307-401-11(1)(h), which requires the source to
demonstrate that the replacement of the control apparatus or process
equipment does not violate any provisions of Title R307, including:
R307-403 (New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment and Maintenance
Areas) and R307-405 (PSD). This is further clarified in R307-401-
3(2)(a),

which states, ``Exemptions contained in R307-401 do not affect
applicability or other requirements under R307-403, R307-405 or R307-
406.'' In addition, R307-401-3 indicates that the rules contained in
R307-401 are limited to the State's minor source permitting program and
are separate from major source regulations. These rules satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(a) because R307-401-11(2)(a) provides the
State or a local agency the opportunity to determine whether the
project will result in a violation of applicable portions of the
control strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS and 40 CFR 51.160(b) because R307-401-11(1)(h) provides a means
for the State or a local agency can prevent an exempted source from
violating applicable portions of the control strategy or interfering
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. These provisions provide
important safeguards that prevent any increase that could occur as a
result of replacement-in-kind from circumventing review under any other
provision of the NSR program.
    R307-401-11(2)(b) states that public review is not required for the
update of an approval order. Since replacement-in-kind under R307-401-
11 is exempt from filing a notice of intent under R307-401-5, public
notice requirements under R307-401-7 do not apply.
    We are proposing to disapprove R307-401-12 (Reduction in Air
Contaminants). R307-401-12(1) provides that an owner or operator of a
stationary source of air contaminants that reduces or eliminates air
contaminants is exempt from the approval order requirements in R307-
401-5 through R307-401-8 if the project does not increase the potential
to emit of any air contaminant or cause emissions of any new air
contaminant. However, the rule states in R307-401-12(1)(b) that the
reduction in air contaminants is made enforceable through an approval
order in accordance with R307-401-12(2). R307-401-12(2) states that the
executive secretary will update the sources approval order or issue a
new approval order to include the project and to make the emissions
reductions enforceable.
    R307-401-12 does not meet the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and
40 CFR 51.160(a). 40 CFR 51.160(a) requires that a state or local
agency must provide for enforceable procedures that enable it to
determine whether a construction or modification project would result
in a violation of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. As outlined above, the rules within R307-401-
12 require clarification. It is not clear to the source or to the
public what projects under R307-401-12 would trigger approval order
requirements in R307-401-5 through R307-401-8.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-13 (Plantwide Applicability
Limits). R307-401-13 provides that a plantwide applicability limit
under R307-405-21 does not exempt a stationary source from the
requirements in R307-401. This rule is approvable because it specifies
that major PSD sources are not exempt from the requirements of R307-
401.
    R307-401-14 (Used Oil Fuel Burned for Energy Recovery), R307-401-15
(Air Strippers and Soil Venting Projects) and R307-401-16 (De minimis
Emissions From Soil Aeration Projects) were previously proposed for
approval (see 77 FR 37859 (June 25, 2012)). Therefore, we do not need
to act on these rules in this notice.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-17 (Temporary Relocation).
R307-401-17 allows temporary relocation of a stationary source for up
to 180 days without submitting the proposal for public comment prior to
approval or disapproval. R307-401-17 requires: (1) The executive
secretary to ``evaluate the expected emissions impact at the site and
(evaluate) compliance with applicable Title R307 rules as a basis for
determining if approval for temporary relocation may be granted'' and
(2) the owner to keep records at the site and submit the records to the
executive secretary at the end of 180 calendar days, and provide that
the records are made available for review. We are proposing to approve
this rule because it meets the requirement of 40 CFR 51.160(a) because
the rule provides the State or a local agency the opportunity to
determine whether the project will result in a violation of applicable
portions of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-18 (Eighteen Month Review).
This rule provides that approval orders issued with the provisions of
R307-401 will be reviewed eighteen months after the date of issuance to
determine the status of the project. If the project is not proceeding,
the approval order may be revoked. This rule is consistent with 40 CFR
51.160(a) because the rule provides the State or a local agency the
opportunity to determine whether the project will result in a violation
of applicable portions of the control strategy or interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-19 (Analysis of Alternatives).
R307-401-19 requires an owner or operator of a major new source or
major modification that is located in a nonattainment or maintenance
area or which could impact a nonattainment or maintenance area must, in
addition to the requirements in R307-401, submit with the notice of
intent an adequate analysis as outlined in this rule. This rule meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b) because R307-401-19
provides that an analysis, as described in this provision, must be
submitted along with the notice of intent; the source must comply with
all requirements in R307-401; the executive secretary shall review the
analysis; and the analysis and the executive secretary's comments shall
be subject to public comment as required by R307-401-7. This provision
provides important safeguards that prevent any increase that could
affect maintenance of the NAAQS.
    We are proposing to approve R307-401-20 (Relaxation of
Limitations). R307-401-20 specifies that the relaxation of limitations
provision only applies to a source or modification to be located in a
nonattainment or maintenance area. This rule has been previously
approved in 71 FR 7679 on February 14, 2006, into R307-401-9. In this
rulemaking, we are proposing to approve the renumbering of the rule
``Relaxation of Limitations'' from R307-401-9 to R307-401-20.
    EPA further notes that the comparable federal definition for
relaxation of limitations which applies to PSD sources, located in 40
CFR 52.21(r)(4), was incorporated by reference into the Utah SIP on
July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41712). This rule is located in the Utah SIP at
R307-405-19.

R307-410 (Permits: Emission Impact Analysis)

    We are proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
R307-401-10 (Permits: Emission Impact Analysis).
    We are proposing to approve all of R307-410, except for R307-410-5
(Documentation of Ambient Air Impacts for Hazardous Air Pollutants); we
are proposing to disapprove R307-410-5 because EPA lacks authority in
an action on a SIP revision under CAA section 110 to approve provisions
addressing hazardous air pollutants. Thus we are proposing to
disapprove these specific provisions. We are also proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove R307-410-6, as explained
below.
    These rules (R307-410) establish modeling requirements to determine
the

impact of emissions from new or modified sources that require an
approval order under R307-401. The rules are intended to ensure that
the construction or modification project will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS as required by 40 CFR 51.160.
These rules also establish the procedures and requirements for
evaluating the emissions impact of hazardous air pollutants and
procedures for establishing an emissions rate based on good engineering
practice stack height as required by 40 CFR 51.118.
    The modeling requirements for PSD permitting are incorporated by
reference into R307-405; however, they appear in R307-410-3 and R307-
410-4 and are not deleted from R307-410 because the same requirements
still apply to smaller sources that are not subject to PSD rule
requirements of R307-405. The definitions in R307-410 are deleted from
R307-410-2 and incorporated by reference from 40 CFR 51.100 into R307-
410-2(2). All of the definitions deleted in R307-410 are located in 40
CFR part 51.100(ff) through (kk) and (nn). The definitions of
``Vertically Restricted Emissions Release'' and ``Vertically
Unrestricted Emissions Release,'' which we approved for deletion from
section R307-101-2 in our prior action (73 FR 51222) have not changed;
they are simply being renumbered to Rule R307-410-2 because the terms
are not used in other rules. The incorporation by reference of the
Federal Guidelines on Air Quality Models in R307-410-3 is updated to
reflect the most current issue at the time the rules were adopted by
the State. For ease of use, the modeling limit for carbon monoxide in
R307-410-4, Table 1, is specified instead of referencing another rule.
    The R307-410 provisions provide air impact analysis guidelines,
which establish legally enforceable procedures enabling state and local
agencies to determine whether construction or modification of a
facility will violate applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, which meets the
requirement of 40 CFR 51.160(a).
    The R307-410-6 provisions provide that the degree of emission
limitation required of any source for control of any air contaminant to
include determinations made under R307-401, R307-403 and R307-405, must
not be affected by so much of any source's stack height that exceeds
good engineering practice or by any other dispersion technique. The
rule also outlines who the provisions apply to. While the rule is
generally consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 51.164 (Stack
Height Procedures), similar to the disapproval discussed elsewhere in
this notice regarding the 10-day public comment period, R307-410-6 is
missing the required public notice elements found in 40 CFR 51.164.
Specifically, R307-410-6 is missing the requirement that ``[s]uch
procedures must provide that before a State issues a permit to a source
based on a good engineering practice stack height that exceeds the
height allowed by Sec.  51.100(ii) (1) or (2), the State must notify
the public of the availability of the demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for public hearing on it''. Therefore, we are
proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove this particular
rule since the State rule omits the requirements for the State to
notify the public of the availability of documentation of a study where
a source exceeds the height allowed and provide an opportunity for
public hearing.

IV. What Authorities Apply to EPA's Proposed Action

    In determining whether SIP revisions submitted by the State of Utah
on October 15, 2006, are approvable or not approvable, EPA applies the
following authorities.
    The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a minor
NSR program in their SIP to regulate modifications and new construction
of stationary sources within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS
are achieved. EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-164 are
intended to ensure that new source growth is consistent with
maintenance of the NAAQS and 40 CFR 51.160(e) requires states to
identify types and sizes of facilities which will be subject to review
under their minor NSR program. For sources identified under 40 CFR
51.160(e), 40 CFR 51.160(a) requires that the SIP include legally
enforceable procedures that enable a state or local agency to determine
whether construction or modification of a facility, building, structure
or installation, or combination of these will result in a violation of
applicable portions of the control strategy or interference with
attainment or maintenance of a national standard in the state in which
the proposed source (or modification) is located or in a neighboring
state. 40 CFR 51.160(b) requires these procedures must include a means
by which the state or local agency can prevent a construction or
modification if the construction or modification will result in a
violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or
interference with attainment or maintenance of a national standard.
    Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes states from
changing the requirements of the SIP except through SIP revisions
approved by EPA. SIP revisions will be approved by EPA only if they
meet all requirements of section 110 of the CAA and the implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 51. See CAA section 110(l); and 40 CFR
51.104.
    EPA recognizes that, under the applicable federal regulations,
states have broad discretion to determine the scope of their minor NSR
programs as needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The states have
significant discretion to tailor minor NSR requirements that are
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 51.160. States may also
provide a rationale for why their rules are at least as stringent as
the 40 CFR part 51 requirements where their rules are different from
those in 40 CFR part 51. For example, states may exempt from minor NSR
certain categories of changes based on de minimis or administrative
necessity grounds in accordance with the criteria set out in Alabama
Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-361 (D.C. Cir. 1979). De minimis
sources are presumed not to have an impact and their emissions would
not prevent or interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, even within
nonattainment areas.
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states: ``Each revision to an
implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The
Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.''
    The states' obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is
considered as ``any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.''
A demonstration of noninterference is necessary to show that this
revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, including those for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide
(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, nitrogen oxides
(NOX) or any other requirement of the Act. EPA has
determined that a 110(l) demonstration of noninterference is applicable
to R307-401-9. Utah has submitted this demonstration (see docket).
    Since there are no ambient air quality standards for hazardous air
pollutants, the area's compliance with any

applicable maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, as
well as any federal mobile source control requirements under CAA
sections 112 or 202(l) would constitute an acceptable demonstration of
noninterference for hazardous air pollutants.
    Section 110(l) does not require a demonstration of noninterference
for changes to federal requirements that are not included in the SIP. A
revision to the SIP, however, cannot interfere with any federally
mandated program such as a MACT standard (or related section 112
requirements).

V. EPA's Analysis of Proposed Approval Actions on SIP Revisions

    In this proposed rulemaking, we are proposing to approve the new
and revised rules and renumbering of rules as outlined in section III
above and as described in Table 1--Rulemaking Crosswalk and Table 2--
Definitions Crosswalk, located in the docket for R307-101-2, R307-401
and R307-410. We are proposing approval based on the authorities as
outlined in section IV of this rulemaking. As explained in this
rulemaking, the rules we are proposing to approve meet the statutory
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and the regulatory
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160.
    We also evaluated the new rule R307-401-9 using CAA section 110(l).
Section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP revision only after a state has
demonstrated that such a revision will not interfere
(``noninterference'') with attainment of the NAAQS, RFP or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
    EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case
basis to determine what the appropriate demonstration of
noninterference with attainment of the NAAQS, rate of progress, RFP or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA should entail. In this
instance, EPA asked the State to submit an analysis showing that the
approval of new section R307-401-9 would not violate section 110(l) of
the CAA (see docket); this is also referred to as a ``demonstration of
noninterference'' with attainment and maintenance under CAA section
110(l). Based on the state's demonstration and analysis in this notice,
we are proposing to approve portions of new rule R307-401-9, as
outlined in Section III above.

VI. EPA's Analysis of Proposed Disapproval Actions on SIP Revisions

    We are proposing to disapprove R307-401-7 (Public Notice). This
rule, which generally allows for a 10-day comment period, is
inconsistent with federal regulations for Public Availability of
Information found at 40 CFR 51.161(b)(2), which require at a minimum a
30-day public comment period for the permitting of a source, including
minor source permits. In addition, the 30-day comment period is
important to allow adequate opportunity for comment by other affected
states, federal agencies, and the public.
    We are proposing to disapprove R307-401-9 (Small Source Exemption)
paragraph (b) and the phrase ``or (b)'' in paragraph (c). EPA lacks
authority in an action on a SIP revision under CAA section 110 to
approve provisions addressing hazardous air pollutants. Thus we are
proposing to disapprove these specific provisions. If the State
requests to withdraw these specific provisions prior to the time we
take final action, we would not be obligated to take final action
because these provisions would no longer be pending before the Agency
as a SIP revision.
    We are proposing to disapprove R307-401-12 (Reduction in Air
Contaminants). As explained in this rulemaking, R307-401-12 does not
meet the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160(a). 40 CFR
51.160(a) requires that a state or local agency must be able to
determine whether a construction or modification project would result
in a violation of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. As outlined above, the rules within R307-401-
12 require clarification. It is not clear to the source or to the
public what projects under R307-401-12 would trigger approval order
requirements in R307-401-5 through R307-401-8.
    We are proposing to disapprove R307-410-5 (Documentation of Ambient
Air Impacts for Hazardous Air Pollutants). EPA lacks authority in an
action on a SIP revision under CAA section 110 to approve provisions
addressing hazardous air pollutants. Thus we are proposing to
disapprove these specific provisions. If the State requests to withdraw
these specific provisions prior to the time we take final action, we
would not be obligated to take final action because these provisions
would no longer be pending before the Agency as a SIP revision.
    We are proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
R307-410-6 (Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques). While the rule is
generally consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 51.164 (Stack
Height Procedures), similar to the disapproval discussed elsewhere in
this notice regarding the 10-day public comment period, R307-410-6 is
missing the required public notice elements found in 40 CFR 51.164.
Specifically, R307-410-6 is missing the requirement that ``[s]uch
procedures must provide that before a State issues a permit to a source
based on a good engineering practice stack height that exceeds the
height allowed by Sec.  51.100(ii) (1) or (2), the State must notify
the public of the availability of the demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for public hearing on it''. Therefore, we are
proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove this particular
rule since the State rule omits the requirements for the State to
notify the public of the availability of documentation of a study where
a source exceeds the height allowed and provide an opportunity for
public hearing.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 30, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-13979 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 47165]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14781-000]

Energy Resources USA, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 4, 2016, Energy Resources USA, Inc. filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project
located at the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Kentucky River Lock and Dam
#8, located on the Kentucky River in Garrard County, Kentucky. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The
existing 309-foot-long, 31-foot-high lock and dam, including an
inoperable stone masonry lock; (2) three 3.96-foot-high, 87.50-foot-
long hydraulic flashboards to be installed on the crest of the 262.5-
foot-long spillway; (3) a reservoir with a surface area of 573 acres
and a storage capacity of 14,020 acre-feet at a normal surface
elevation of 31 feet mean sea level (msl); (4) a 770-foot-long, 300-
foot-wide intake channel with a 85-foot-long retaining wall; (5) a 131-
foot-long, 82-foot-wide powerhouse, to be built adjacent to the
spillway end of the dam, containing two generating units with a total
capacity of 11 megawatts; (6) a 1000-foot-long, 220-foot-wide tailrace
with a 40-foot-long retaining wall; (7) a 4.16/69 kilo-Volt (kV)
substation; and (8) a 3-mile-long, 69 kV transmission line. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 59,180
megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, Energy Resources USA, Inc.,
2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 804, Coral Gables, Florida 33134, (954) 248-
8425.
    FERC Contact: Dustin Wilson<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6528.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14781-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17119 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 182 (Thursday, September 23, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52848-52851]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0827; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00617-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by reports of slat transmission jams caused by frozen slat
geared rotary actuators (SGRA) at slat 5 track 12. This proposed AD
would require repetitive water drainage and plug cleaning of the left-
and right-hand SGRA having a certain part number installed on slat 5
track 12 with certain functional item numbers, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for
incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 8,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this

material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0827.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0827; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0827; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00617-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to, Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0130R1, dated June 10, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0130R1) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of slat transmission jams
caused by frozen SGRA at slat 5 track 12. Further investigation showed
that the jams occur when water in the SGRA freezes due to low
temperature during cruise and insufficient water drainage. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address SGRA jams, which could result in reduced
control of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0130R1 describes procedures for repetitive water
drainage and plug cleaning of the left- and right-hand SGRA having part
number 4775A0000-02 installed on slat 5 track 12 with functional item
number (FIN) 5045CW and FIN 5145CW (including reinstalling incorrectly
installed drain plug assemblies and replacing any damaged or missing
nylon pins). This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2021-0130R1 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0130R1 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2021-0130R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0130R1 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2021-
0130R1. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0130R1 for
compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0827 after the FAA final
rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340...........................              $0             $340           $5,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, 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

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2021-0827; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00617-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 8, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of slat transmission jams caused
by frozen slat geared rotary actuators (SGRA) at slat 5 track 12 due
to low temperature during cruise and insufficient water drainage.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address SGRA jams, which could result
in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0130R1, dated June 10, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0130R1).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0130R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0130R1 refers to ``the effective date of
the original issue of this [EASA] AD,'' this AD requires using the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0130R1 does not
apply to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0130R1 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0130R1 contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on

the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0827.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact, Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on September 16, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-20405 Filed 9-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/10/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER PLAN WITH Advanced Energy Board of Directors Meeting held on 06/17/2014

SUMMARY:

EPA Region 4 provided an overview of the Clean Power Plan to attendees at the Advanced Energy Board of Directors Meeting on 06/17/2014 in Raleigh, NC.  The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

External Stakeholders Dr. Robert Koger, Advanced Energy Other Board Members and guests

ATTACHMENTS

Advance Questions for Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Advanced Energy Board of Directors Meeting held on 06/17/2014 in Raleigh, NC

   oo Upon release of the proposed greenhouse gas rule, EPA publicly stated the rule would result in reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30% over 2005 levels.  Upon review, the rule proposes state-specific carbon intensity (emission rate vs. tonnage) goals based on 2012 levels.    Can you send a few moments clarifying these two statements?           oo One of the consistent themes throughout EPA's stakeholder meetings, including those with state regulators, was the desire that EPA recognize and give credit for early action taken to reduce CO2 emissions.  NC has retired or will have retired half of its coal fleet by 2018.   Will N.C. get credit for this early action?   How will the proposed rule address retirements prior to 2012? And between 2012 and the first compliance requirement of 2020?            oo Will this rule force additional coal retirements?

   oo EPA set state goals, including North Carolina's, based on assumptions that utility customers will participate in energy efficiency programs at ever increasing levels.  History has shown that despite utility incentives, not all customers have chosen to participate.  In fact, in NC, large industrials have the legal option to opt out of such programs.  How does EPA intend to address these concerns?

   oo The proposed rule does not allow states to use all of its nuclear generation, an emissions free resource, to count towards meeting the goal.  Why not?

   * Obviously, states will play a vital role in enforcing the EPA guidance through their individual implementation plans.  Outside of the formal comment process, will EPA be engaging in any stakeholder dialogues (with states or other affected parties) prior to finalizing the rule?

   * What criteria will EPA use to evaluate the state implementation plans?

   * Would congress have to expand EPA's authority to allow electric vehicles to count toward the goal?

   * This just cites some confusion over the 2012 base for renewables and energy efficiency.  I don't know if you can add any more to this except to say that they were incorporated into the overall state by state picture.  (Question in relation to the following article:  UTILITIES: Early movers fret EPA climate rule won't fully credit early investments  (Tuesday, June 10, 2014); Jean Chemnick and Hannah Northey, E&E reporters)

   * The only point I see of interest here is the comment that each of the 4 bases are severable.  In other words, if the courts were to overturn one of them, the rest would apply and just make it possibly more difficult to meet the requirements.  (In relation to the following article:  REGULATION: Questions of jurisdiction, responsibility may foreshadow legal trouble for new EPA power plant rule  (Friday, June 6, 2014); Nathanael Massey, E&E reporter)

   * I assume that you will give an overview (30 percent by 2030) of the rule including the 4 "building blocks".  Can you discuss how the "requirements for each state varies and how they depend on several factors.  Can you cite NC specifically?  Also, it appears that energy efficiency and renewables can count toward meeting the goal but it looks like in figuring the goals, everything done in these areas up to 2012 have already been considered by EPA in setting the state by state requirements.  Might want to state that (assuming this is the case) so that there will not be any confusion.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6153-6155]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74171; File No. SR-BOX-2015-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Extend the Deadline for the VPR Program to January 14, 2015

January 29, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on January 16, 2015, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to extend the deadline for the
VPR Program to January 14, 2015. There are no proposed changes to any
rule text.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On January 9, 2015, the Exchange filed a rule change on Form 19b-4
to implement an equity rights program (the ``VPR Program''), to be
effective January 12, 2015 (the ``VPR Filing'').\5\ As provided on page
13 of 49 in the VPR Filing, applicants to participate in the VPR
Program were required to make a nominal cash payment of $85 per VPR by
January 12, 2015. Also, as provided on page 15 of 49 in the VPR Filing,
applicants to participate in the VPR Program were required to sign the
applicable subscription documents by January 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-BOX-2015-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because all prospective Subscribers to the VPR Program were unable
to sign the required documents and make the associated payment by the
January 12, 2015 deadline, BOX proposes to make a reasonable
accommodation to all prospective Subscribers. Accordingly, BOX proposes
to extend the deadline, by which subscription documents and payments
must be submitted to BOX, by two days to January 14, 2015 (the
``Extension Period''). This extension would allow all parties desiring
to participate in the VPR Program to subscribe. In making such
accommodation, no prospective Subscribers to the VPR Program would be
impaired in their ability to participate in the VPR Program.
    Further, as provided on pages 4, 15 and 17 of 49 in the VPR Filing,
BOX expected to begin measuring order flow volume for the VPR Program
on January 12, 2015. In connection with the extension of time afforded
prospective Subscribers, BOX proposes to begin measuring order flow
volume upon effectiveness of this rule filing with respect to any
Subscriber that signed the subscription documents and made the cash
payment during the Extension Period.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers. In particular, the proposed rule change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it proposes to make a
reasonable accommodation to all prospective Subscribers who wish to
participate in the VPR Program. This will ensure that no prospective
Subscribers to the VPR Program would be impaired in their ability to
participate in the VPR Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will improve competition by allowing all
market participants to subscribe to the VPR Program.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\8\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2015-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2015-05. 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-BOX-
2015-05, and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2015-02106 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P