[Federal Register: April 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 17845-17846]
[DOCID:fr17ap09-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13343-000]

Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

April 9, 2009.
    On December 9, 2008, Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Mosquito Creek Hydroelectric
Project, to be located on Mosquito Creek, in Trumbull County, Ohio.
    The proposed Mosquito Creek Hydroelectric Project would be located
at: (1) the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5,650-foot-long, 47-
foot-high Mosquito Creek Dam; and (2) an existing 8,900-acre reservoir
with water surface elevation of 904 feet mean sea level.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse
containing one or more turbine/generators with a total installed
capacity of 0.5 megawatts; (2) a new 50-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter
penstock; (3) a new 400-foot-long

transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The Mosquito Creek
Project would have an estimated average annual generation of 1,682
megawatts-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony J. Marra, Managing Partner, Hydro
Energy Technologies, LLC, 31300 Solon Rd., Suite 12, Solon, OH 44139,
(440) 498-1000.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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.
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
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project 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-
13343) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8804 Filed 4-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9343-9344]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Project No. 1389-059]

Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (Pad),
Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments
on the Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and
Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 1389-059.
    c. Dated Filed: December 16, 2021.
    d. Submitted By: Southern California Edison Company (SCE).
    e. Name of Project: Rush Creek Hydroelectric Project (Rush Creek
Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on Rush Creek in Mono County,
California. The existing FERC project boundary encompasses a total of
1,129 acres of land and occupies federal land in Inyo National Forest
and Ansel Adams Wilderness Area administered by the U.S. Forest
Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Matthew Woodhall, Rush Creek
Relicensing Project Manager, Southern California Edison Company, 1515
Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part
402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Office, as required by
section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating SCE as the Commission's
non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation,
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. SCE filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD),
including a proposed process plan and schedule, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6
of the Commission's regulations.
    n. 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 via the internet through
the Commission's Home Page (http://www.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 FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to
be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from staff related to the merits of the
potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must
include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.
For assistance, please contact FERC Support at
[email protected] In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-1389-059.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by April 15, 2022.
    p. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the
required level of analysis and satisfy the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the
Commission prepares an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement.

Scoping Meetings

    Due to on-going concerns with large gatherings related to COVID-19,
we do not intend to hold in-person public scoping meetings or an in-
person environmental site review. Rather, Commission staff will hold
two public scoping meetings using a telephone conference line. The
daytime scoping meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes,
and non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the evening
scoping meeting will focus on receiving input from the public. We
invite all interested agencies, Native American tribes, NGOs, and
individuals to attend one of these meetings to assist us in identifying
the scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed in the NEPA
document. Additionally, a virtual site tour of the Rush Creek Project
is available on SCE's website. The dates and times of the

meetings as well as how to access the virtual site tour are listed
below.

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtual site tour of the project:
    Access online at: https://www.sce.com/regulatory/hydro-licensing/rush-creek.

Meeting for resource agencies, Tribes, and NGOs:
    Monday, March 14, 2022.
    9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. PST.
    Call in number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Access code: 1572324.
Following entry of the access code, please provide the required details
 when prompted.

Meeting for the general public:
    Monday, March 14, 2022.
    6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. PST.
    Call in number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Access code: 1572324.
Following entry of the access code, please provide the required details
 when prompted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the
environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on
the Commission's mailing list and SCE's distribution list. Copies of
SD1 may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions for accessing information in
paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document
2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised process plan and
schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified through the scoping
process.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, Commission staff will: (1) Initiate
scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions; (3)
review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary
information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan
and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames
provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the
extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal
permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the potential
of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe to act as a cooperating
agency for development of an environmental document. Meeting
participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or
concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    Commission staff will be moderating the scoping meetings. The
meetings will begin promptly at their respective start times listed
above.
    At the start of the meeting, staff will provide further
instructions regarding the meeting setup, agenda, and time period for
comments and questions. We ask for your patience as staff present
information and field participant comments in orderly manner. To
indicate you have a question or comment, press * and 3 to virtually
``raise your hand''. Oral comments will be limited to 5 minutes in
duration for each participant. The meetings will be recorded by a
stenographer and will be filed to the public record of the project.
    Please note, that if no participants join the meetings within 15
minutes after the start time, staff will end the meeting and conference
call. The meetings will end after participants have presented their
oral comments or at the specified end time, whichever occurs first.

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03573 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75609]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29729]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Geo Finance Corporation; Order of Suspension of Trading

December 16, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Geo Finance Corporation (``Geo Finance'') because of concerns regarding
the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace and
potentially manipulative activity related to Geo Finance common stock.
Geo Finance is a Florida corporation with its principal place of
business located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Its stock is quoted on
OTC Link, (previously ``Pink Sheets'') operated by OTC Markets Group
Inc., under the ticker symbol: GEFI.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on
December 16, 2014 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 30, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29729 Filed 12-16-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80076-80079]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28269]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0815; FRL-10250-02-R9]

Finding of Failure To Attain and Reclassification as Serious
Nonattainment for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Standard: Plumas
County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to determine that the Plumas County nonattainment area failed to
attain the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'')
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') by the
December 31, 2021 ``Moderate'' area attainment date. This determination
is based on ambient air quality monitoring data from 2019 through 2021.
With this final determination, Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') section
188(b)(2) requires that the nonattainment area be reclassified to
Serious by operation of law. Within 18 months from the effective date
of the reclassification to Serious, the State must submit a revision to
its State Implementation Plan (SIP) that complies with the statutory
and regulatory requirements for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
areas.

DATES: This effective date of this rule is January 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0815. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Dorantes, Air Planning Office

(AIR-2), EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Summary of Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On November 1, 2022,\1\ the EPA proposed to find that the Plumas
County nonattainment area (``Portola nonattainment area'') failed to
attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2021
Moderate area attainment date. This proposal was based on our review of
quality-assured and certified PM2.5 air quality monitoring
data from the 2019-2021 calendar years, which we compared to the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS attainment for the Portola nonattainment
area.\2\ Please refer to our proposal for additional information
regarding our review of the monitoring data and associated
documentation. As explained in our proposed rulemaking, if we finalize
the determination that the area did not attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date, in accordance with section 188(b)(1) of the
Act, the Portola nonattainment area would be reclassified by operation
of law from Moderate to Serious for the 2012 annual PM2.5
standard. In our proposed action, we further explained that upon
reclassification, California would be required to submit an additional
SIP revision to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas, including the
requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act and 40 CFR part
51, subpart Z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 87 FR 65719 (November 1, 2022).
    \2\ The PM2.5 monitoring data that the EPA reviewed
indicate that the annual PM2.5 design value for 2021 is
at 16.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) at the Portola
monitoring site (AQS Site ID: 06-063-1010) in the nonattainment
area, which is above the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
(12.0 [mu]g/m\3\). 87 FR 65719 (November 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule closed on
December 1, 2022. During this period, the EPA received one comment,
which argued that Plumas County has been affected by illegal
immigration and that such immigration results in pollution from
vehicles, lawn equipment, discarded clothing, and phone batteries.\3\
After reviewing the comment, the EPA has determined that the comment
fails to raise issues germane to the proposed finding and
reclassification of the Portola nonattainment area, which is based
solely upon air monitoring data. Therefore, we have determined that
this comment does not necessitate a response, and the EPA will not
provide a specific response to the comment in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The comment is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
See Docket ID EPA-R09-2022-0815 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in our proposed rule and summarized in
this document, we are finalizing our finding that the Portola
nonattainment area did not attain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by its applicable Moderate area attainment date of December 31,
2021. Pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2), upon the effective date of
this action, the Portola nonattainment area will be reclassified as a
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area by operation of law and
will be subject to all applicable Serious area requirements.
    The Serious area SIP elements that California is required to submit
are as follows:
    1. Provisions to assure that the best available control measures,
including the best available control technology for stationary sources,
for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors shall be implemented no later than four years after the area
is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
    2. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not later
than December 31, 2025, or where the state is seeking an extension of
the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that
attainment by December 31, 2025 is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable and not later than December 31, 2030 (CAA sections
189(b)(1)(A), 188(c)(2), and 188(e));
    3. Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP)
(CAA section 172(c)(2));
    4. Quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every three
years until the area is redesignated to attainment and that demonstrate
RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
    5. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the
state demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));
    6. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in
the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
    7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet
any requirement concerning RFP or quantitative milestones or fails to
attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and
    8. A revision to the nonattainment new source review program to
lower the applicable ``major stationary source'' \4\ threshold from 100
tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)) and to satisfy
the subpart 4 requirements for major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors (CAA section 189(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For any Serious area, the terms ``major source'' and ``major
stationary source'' include any stationary source that emits or has
the potential to emit at least 70 tpy of PM2.5 (CAA
section 189(b)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 189(b)(2), the SIP revision that satisfies
these elements will be due 18 months from the effective date of the
final reclassification to Serious. Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act,
the attainment date for a Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year
beginning after the area's designation as nonattainment. . .'' The EPA
designated Plumas County as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS effective January 15, 2015. Therefore, upon reclassification to
Serious, the latest permissible attainment date under section 188(c)(2)
of the Act for the purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Portola nonattainment area is December 31, 2025.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
requires the state to adopt and submit a SIP revision to satisfy CAA
requirements and does not itself directly regulate any small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action itself
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector. This final action is to determine that the
Portola nonattainment area failed to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. As of the effective date, this determination triggers
existing statutory timeframes for the state to submit a SIP revision.
Such a determination in and of itself does not impose any federal
intergovernmental mandate.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. As there are no federally recognized tribes
within the Portola nonattainment area,\5\ the finding of failure to
attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not apply to tribal
areas, and the rule does not impose a burden on Indian reservation
lands or other areas where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction within the Portola nonattainment area.
Thus, this 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Map of Federally-Recognized Tribes in EPA's Pacific
Southwest (Region 9) is available at https://www.epa.gov/tribal-pacific-sw/map-federally-recognized-tribes-epas-pacific-southwest-region-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because the effect of this action will trigger
additional planning requirements under the CAA. This action does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. There is no information in the record indicating that
this action is inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order
12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and indigenous peoples.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability. This rule makes factual determinations for specific
entities and does not direct regulate any entities. The determination
of a failure to attain by the attainment date and reclassification does
not in itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by
the CAA.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 27, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: December 21, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.305 amend the table ``California--2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary]'' by revising the entry for ``Plumas
County, CA'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                       California--2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                    [Primary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Designation                       Classification
           Designated area \1\            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Date \2\            Type            Date \2\            Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Plumas County, CA
    Plumas County (part).................  ................  Nonattainment...  January 30, 2023  Serious.
    That portion of Plumas County within
     the following Super Planning
     Watersheds (SPWS), as defined by the
     State of California's Department of
     Conservation Statewide Watershed
     Program: Humbug Valley (#55183301),
     Sulpher Creek (#55183302), Frazier
     Creek (#55183303), and Eureka Lake
     (#55183304)

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes areas of Indian country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\2\ This date is April 15, 2015, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-28269 Filed 12-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Section 2. Sample Collection Information Section 3. Sample Process Dates, Times, and Temperatures Section 4. Number of Positive Wells and Calculations Large wells positive Section 5. Comments 1Ground water under the direct influence of surface water Large wells positive Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Source Water Monitoring Method Type: ONPG MUG, 97 well Analytical Method Number: SM 9223 ( Colilert ® and Colilert 18 ® )

Section 1. Laboratory Identification Information RESULTS E. coli per 100 mL E. coli Sample volume analyzed ( mL) Total coliforms Analyst initials Date: Date:

Small wells positive Small wells positive Total coliforms per 100 mL Laboratory name: Laboratory ID:

Sample ID ( optional): Sample collection date:

PWS ID: Sample collection time:

PWS facility ID: Holding time:

Sample collection point ID: Turbidity result ( NTU):

Incubation start Additional incubation start Date: Date:

Time: Time:

Temperature ( oC): Temperature ( oC): Source water type ( circle one): Flowing stream ( FS) Reservoir/ lake ( RL) 1GWUDI FS 1GWUDI RL Analytical method number ( circle one): SM 9223 Colilert SM 9223 Colilert 18 Temperature ( oC): Temperature ( oC):

Incubation end Additional incubation end Time: Time:

Draft June 2003


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4678-4680]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01711]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94037; File No. SR-BX-2022-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend References
to FINRA Continuing Education Fees

January 24, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 12, 2022, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX's Pricing Schedule at Equity 7,
Section 30, Regulatory, Registration and Processing Fees, to reflect
adjustments to FINRA Continuing Education Fees.
    The Exchange also proposes technical amendments to BX Options 7,
Section 1, General Provisions.
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated the new Maintaining Qualifications Program
(``MQP'') Fee, elimination of the $100 Continuing Education Session
Fee, and technical amendments to become operative on January 31, 2022.
Additionally, the Exchange designates an $18 Continuing Education
Regulatory Element Session Fee to become operative on January 1,
2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93928 (January 7,
2022) (SR-FINRA-2021-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    This proposal amends BX's Pricing Schedule at Equity 7, Section 30,
Regulatory, Registration and Processing Fees, to reflect adjustments to
FINRA Continuing Education Fees.\4\ The FINRA fees are collected and
retained by FINRA via Web CRD for the registration of employees of BX
Members that are not FINRA members (``Non-FINRA members''). The
Exchange is merely listing these fees on its Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange does not collect or retain these fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FINRA operates Web CRD, the central licensing and
registration system for the U.S. securities industry. FINRA uses Web
CRD to maintain the qualification, employment and disciplinary
histories of registered associated persons of broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, BX Equity 7, Section 30, provides a list of FINRA Web CRD
Fees, Fingerprint Processing Fees, and Continuing Education Fees. The
Exchange proposes to amend the Continuing Education Fees within Equity
7, Section 30 on behalf of the Exchange. The fees listed within Equity
7, Section 30 reflect fees set by FINRA.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to decrease the $55 Continuing
Education Web-based Fee to $18. This amendment is made in accordance
with a recent FINRA rule change to adjust to its fees.\5\

FINRA currently charges a fee of $55 to each individual who completes
the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements
pursuant to Exchange General 4, Section 1240. In conjunction with the
amendments to transition to an annual Regulatory Element requirement,
FINRA amended the Continuing Education Regulatory Element Session Fee
from $55 to $18.\6\ FINRA indicated in the Continuing Education Fee
Filing that it would begin assessing the $18 Continuing Education
Regulatory Element Session Fee as of January 1, 2023 to coincide with
the effective date of the transition to an annual Regulatory Element
requirement.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See note 3 above. On September 21, 2021, the SEC approved
amendments to FINRA Rules 1210 (Registration Requirements) and 1240
(Continuing Education Requirements) to, among other things, require
registered persons to complete the Regulatory Element of CE annually
by December 31 of each year, rather than every three years, and to
complete Regulatory Element content for each representative or
principal registration category that they hold. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 93097 (September 21, 2021), 86 FR 53358
(September 27, 2021) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2021-015).
The Regulatory Element is administered by FINRA and focuses on
regulatory requirements and industry standards. The proposed rule
change also included amendments to the Firm Element training, which
is provided by each firm annually to its registered persons and
focuses on securities products, services and strategies the firm
offers, firm policies and industry trends.
    \6\ FINRA notes that the proposed $18 annual fee is comparable
to the current $55 fee over a three-year period. Moreover, the
proposed fee for the annual Regulatory Element would be the same for
all registered persons, regardless of the amount of annual content
that they would be required to complete (that is, an individual who
holds multiple registrations would be subject to the same proposed
$18 annual fee as an individual who holds a single registration).
See note 3 above.
    \7\ The Exchange would file to remove the rule text concerning
the $55 fee once the $18 fee becomes operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the $100.00 continuing education
fee for each individual who is required to complete the S101 or S201.
This fee applied to continuing education programs administered at test
centers. In 2015, FINRA filed to end test center delivery of the
Regulatory Element.\8\ Effective October 1, 2015, Web-based delivery
has been available for the Regulatory Element. The revised fee of $18
is a Web-based delivery. The Exchange proposes to remove the outdated
continuing education fee of $100 from its Pricing Schedule related to
test center delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31,
2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-015) (Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Provide a Web-based Delivery
Method for Completing the Regulatory Element of the Continuing
Education Requirements). FINRA phased out the test center delivery
as of July 1, 2016. See FINRA Information Notice dated May 16, 2016
(https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051616).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Maintaining
Qualifications Program (``MQP'') Fee of $100 fee for each individual
electing to participate in the continuing education program, following
the termination of a registration category, under FINRA Rule 1240(c)
for each year that such individual is participating in the program.
Individuals who elect to participate in the MQP within two years from
the termination of a registration would also be assessed any accrued
annual fee. The proposed annual fee would be assessed at the time an
eligible individual elects to participate in the continuing education
program under FINRA Rule 1240(c) and thereafter annually each year that
the individual continues in the program. This fee is paid directly to
FINRA. FINRA indicated in the Continuing Education Fee Filing that it
would begin assessing the $100 MQP fee as of January 31, 2022.
    With respect to the rule text, the current $55 Continuing Education
Fee is being reworded to reflect the elimination of the $100 fee and
renamed the ``Continuing Education Regulatory Element Session Fee.''
The $55 will remain in effect until January 1, 2023 so it is being
retained in the Pricing Scheduled with a note that ``This fee will be
amended on January 1, 2023 as noted below.''
    The FINRA Fees are user-based and there is no distinction in the
cost incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a Non-FINRA
member. Accordingly, the proposed fees mirror those currently assessed
by FINRA.
Technical Amendment
    The Exchange also proposes to make technical amendments to BX
Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions. The Exchange proposes to re-
letter the entire section in order to easily cite to the various
sections. Proposed ``(a)'' contains references that the Exchange
proposes to alphabetize, without change to the rule text. The term
``Joint Back Office'' or ``JBO'' would be re-located to proposed
section ``a'' as that is a descriptive term and does not belong with
proposed ``d''.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new ``b'' and header, ``For Purposes
of Common Ownership Aggregation of Activity of Affiliated Members and
Member Organizations'' to more clearly delineate the rule text
associated with aggregation of the activity of affiliates. The Exchange
would also re-letter and re-number that section.
    A ``c'' is proposed to be added to the adding and removing
liquidity paragraph.
    A ``d'' and new header is proposed to be added before the Removal
of Days. The new header would provide, ``For purposes of determining
equity tier calculations under this section, any day that the market is
not open for the entire trading day will be excluded from such
calculation.'' This new header would introduce the rule text which
follows.
    Finally, an ``e'' is proposed before the Collection of Exchange
Fees and Other Claims section.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to decrease the $55
Continuing Education Regulatory Element Session Fee for all
Registrations to $18 in accordance with an adjustment to FINRA's
fees.\11\ The Exchange's rule text will reflect the current rates for
continuing education that will be assessed by FINRA as of January 1,
2023. The proposed fee is identical to a fee adopted by FINRA related
to its continuing education. The costs are borne by FINRA when a Non-
FINRA member engages in continuing education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes eliminating the outdated $100 fee for
continuing education is reasonable as test center delivery of the
Regulatory Element was phased out in 2016 and the continuing education
programs are no longer offered at testing centers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See note 8 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to adopt a new MQP Fee
of $100 for each individual electing to participate in the continuing
education program under FINRA Rule 1240(c) for each year that such
individual is participating in the program. Individuals who elect to
participate in the program within two years from the termination of a
registration would also be assessed any accrued annual fee. The
proposed fee is identical to a fee adopted by FINRA related to its
continuing education. The costs are borne by FINRA when a Non-FINRA
member engages in continuing education.
    Further, the proposal is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will not be collecting or retaining
these fees, therefore, the Exchange will not be in a position to

apply them in an inequitable or unfairly discriminatory manner.
Technical Amendment
    The Exchange's proposal to make technical amendments within BX
Options 7, Section 1 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as the amendments are non-substantive. The amendments
will bring greater clarity to the rule text.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that this proposal creates an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market
burden on competition as FINRA's fees apply to all market participants.
Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal creates
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition as
the decreased Continuing Education Regulatory Element Session Fee for
all Registrations of $18 will be assessed by FINRA to all Members who
are required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing
Education Requirements pursuant to Exchange General 4, Section 1240.
Likewise, with respect to the $100 MQP Fee, the Exchange does not
believe that this proposal creates an unnecessary or inappropriate
intra-market burden on competition because the fee will be assessed by
FINRA to all individuals electing to participate in the continuing
education program under FINRA Rule 1240(c) for each year that such
individual is participating in the program. Finally, eliminating the
outdated $100 fee for continuing education does not create an
unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition as test
center delivery of the Regulatory Element was phased out and the
continuing education programs are no longer offered at testing
centers.\13\ Further, the proposal does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the Exchange will not be collecting or retaining
these fees, therefore, the Exchange will not be in a position to apply
them in an inequitable or unfairly discriminatory manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 8 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Amendment
    The Exchange's proposal to make technical amendments within BX
Options 7, Section 1 does not impose an undue burden on competition as
the amendments are non-substantive. The amendments will bring greater
clarity to the rule text.

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 Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2022-002 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-BX-2022-002. 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 website (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 website 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2022-002 and should be submitted on
or before February 18, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01711 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74037-74038]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1020; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-078-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (type certificate previously held by
Schweizer Aircraft) (Sikorsky) Model 269D and Model 269D Configuration
A helicopters. This proposed AD would require reducing the life limit
of the ring gear carrier assembly. This proposed AD is prompted by
cracks in the ring gear carrier assembly. The proposed actions are
intended to reduce the life of the ring gear carrier assembly to
prevent failure of the main rotor transmission, loss of engine power to
the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 13,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address 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 service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry
Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norman Perenson, Aviation Safety
Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, Propulsion & Services
Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Westbury, New York; telephone (516)
228-7337; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Sikorsky Model 269D and Model 269D
Configuration A helicopters with a certain part-numbered ring carrier
assembly installed. This proposed AD would require reducing the life
limit of the ring carrier assembly from 6,000 hours time-in-service
(TIS) to 5,000 hours TIS by revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the applicable maintenance manual and by removing from
service any ring carrier assembly that exceeded the new life limit.
This proposed AD is prompted by the discovery of a crack in the ring
gear carrier assembly discovered during unscheduled maintenance after
black discoloration of the main transmission oil was observed. The
crack extended around the entire circumference of the flange and
intersected some of the bolt holes but did not propagate ``bolt hole to
bolt hole.'' A metallurgical evaluation determined that fretting caused
multiple origin fatigue cracking on the ring gear carrier assembly. The
proposed actions to reduce the life of the ring gear carrier assembly
are intended to prevent failure of the main rotor transmission, loss of
engine power to the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
design.

Related Service Information

    Sikorsky issued 269D Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB DB-
040A,

Revision A, dated December 4, 2012, to implement a reduction in service
life of the ring gear carrier assembly, part number (P/N) 269A5194,
from 6,000 flight hours to 5,000 flight hours.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require reducing the life limit of the ring
gear carrier assembly, P/N 269A5194, from 6,000 hours TIS to 5,000
hours TIS by revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
applicable maintenance manual. This proposed AD would also require
replacing each ring gear carrier assembly with an airworthy ring gear
carrier assembly on or before reaching 5,000 hours TIS.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 16 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate a minimal cost to change the life limit of the ring
gear. If required, we estimate it would take 27.5 hours to replace a
ring gear carrier assembly at $85 per work hour. Required parts would
cost $7,591 for a total of $9,929 per helicopter.

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, 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. 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, 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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held By
Schweizer Aircraft Corporation): Docket No. FAA-2014-1020;
Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-078-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model 269D and
Model 269D Configuration A helicopters with ring gear carrier
assembly, part number (P/N) 269A5194, installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a fatigue crack in a
ring gear carrier assembly. This condition could result in failure
of the main rotor transmission, loss of engine power to the main
rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 13, 2015.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before further flight:
    (1) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the
applicable maintenance manual by reducing the life limit of the ring
gear carrier assembly, P/N 269A5194, from 6,000 hours time-in-
service (TIS) to 5,000 hours TIS.
    (2) Remove from service any ring gear carrier assembly, P/N
269A5194, with 5,000 or more hours TIS.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Norman
Perenson, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, Propulsion & Services Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave.,
Westbury, New York; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Sikorsky 269D Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB DB-040A,
Revision A, dated December 4, 2012, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy of information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300 Main Rotor
Drive System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 8, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-29260 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46210-46211]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0306]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of a Currently-
Approved Information Collection Request: Annual Report of Class I and
Class II Motor Carriers of Property

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval
to renew the previously approved ICR titled, ``Annual Report of Class I
and Class II Motor Carriers of Property,'' OMB Control No. 2126-0032.
This ICR is necessary to ensure that motor carriers comply with FMCSA's
financial and operating statistics requirements at chapter III of title
49 CFR part 369 titled, ``Reports of Motor Carriers.''

DATES: Please send your comments by August 31, 2020. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Secrist, Office of
Registration and Safety Information, Department of Transportation,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-
385-2367; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Annual Report of Class I and Class II Motor Carriers of
Property.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0032.
    Type of Request: Renewal information collection.
    Respondents: Class I and Class II For-Hire Motor Carriers of
Property and Class I For-Hire Motor Carriers of Passengers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 43 per year.
    Estimated Time per Response: 9 hours for Form M and 0.3 hours for
Form MP-1.
    Expiration Date: September 30, 2020.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 387 hours [387 hours (Form M) + 0
hours (Form MP-1)].
    Estimated annual respondents for Form M decreased from 96 in the
previously approved ICR to 43 respondents in the proposed ICR. As a
result, the estimated annual burden hours for Form M decreased by 477
hours [864 currently approved hours - 387 proposed hours = 477 hours].
For Form MP-1, respondents decreased from 2 in the previously approved
ICR to 0 the proposed ICR. As a result, the estimated annual burden
hours for Form MP-1 decreased by 1 hour [1 currently approved hour - 0
proposed hours = 1 hour] for Form MP-1. Burden costs to the industry
regarding Form M decreased by $20,780 annually, [$38,811 in the
currently approved burden cost - $18,031 in the proposed burden cost =
$20,780]. Burden costs to the industry regarding form MP-1 have
decreased by $59 annually [$59 in the currently approved burden cost -
$0 in the proposed burden cost = $59]. For the Federal Government,
regarding Form M, the federal burden costs have decreased by $91
annually [$165 in the currently approved federal burden cost - $74 in
the proposed burden cost = $91]. Regarding Form MP-1, the federal
burden costs have decreased by $2 annually [$2 in the currently
approved federal burden cost - $0 in the proposed burden cost = $2].
    These lower estimates of annual respondents, hours, respondent
costs and federal costs is due to the decreased number of Form M and
Form MP-1 submissions received by FMCSA between 2016 and 2018.
    Background: Section 14123 of title 49 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) requires certain for-hire motor carriers of property,
passengers, and household goods to file annual financial reports. The
annual reporting program was implemented on December 24, 1938 (3 FR
3158), and it was subsequently transferred from the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC) to the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT)
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) on January 1, 1996. The
Secretary of Transportation delegated to BTS the responsibility for the
program on December 17, 1996 (61 FR 68162). Annual financial reports
are filed on Form M (Class I and II for-hire property carriers,
including household goods carriers) and Form MP-1 (Class I for-hire
passenger carriers). Responsibility for collection of the reports was
transferred from BTS to FMCSA on August 17, 2004 (69 FR 51009), and the
regulations were redesignated as 49 CFR part 369 on August 10, 2006 (71
FR 45740). FMCSA has continued to collect carriers' annual reports and
to furnish copies of the reports to the public when requested under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). For-hire motor carriers (including
interstate and intrastate) subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations are classified on the basis of their gross carrier
operating revenues.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of the Financial and Operating Statistics
(F&OS) program, carriers are classified into the following three
groups: (1) Class I carriers are those having annual carrier
operating revenues (including interstate and intrastate) of $10
million or more after applying the revenue deflator formula as set
forth in Note A of 49 CFR 369.2; and (2) Class II carriers are those
having annual carrier operating revenues (including interstate and
intrastate) of at least $3 million, but less than $10 million after
applying the revenue deflator formula as set forth in 49 CFR 369.2.

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

    Under the Financial and Operating Statistics (F&OS) program, FMCSA
collects from Class I and Class II for-hire motor carriers balance
sheet and income statement data along with information on safety needs,
tonnage, mileage, employees, transportation equipment, and other
related data. FMCSA may also ask carriers to respond to surveys
concerning their operations. The data and information collected is
available to the public via FOIA requests, and may be used by FMCSA to
determine a motor carrier's compliance with the F&OS program
requirements prescribed at chapter III of title of 49 CFR part 369.
FMCSA has created electronic forms that may be prepared, signed
electronically, and submitted to FMCSA via https://ask.fmcsa.dot.gov/app/ask/.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on:
Kenneth Riddle,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2020-16597 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Ms. Darcy Bybee
Director, Air Pollution Control Program
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

Dear Ms. Bybee,
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency appreciates the opportunity to participate in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' State Implementation Plan development process. Enclosed are the EPA's comments regarding the MoDNR's public noticed SIP revision titled "Interstate Transport Provisions for the 2015 Ozone Standard".
The EPA is committed to working with the MoDNR to ensure that the SIP submission contains the information required to meet the Clean Air Act requirements of Section 110(a)(2) and is protective of the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
 							Sincerely,

                                    Mark A. Smith, Director
                                    Air and Waste Management Division
Enclosure

Background:

Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires states to submit a State Implementation Plan revision to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency within 3 years after the promulgation of a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in October 2015 prompting the requirement for the state to submit a SIP revision by October 2018. The purpose of the SIP revision is to provide for the "implementation, maintenance, and enforcement" of the new or revised NAAQS. The EPA has historically referred to these revisions as "infrastructure SIPs" or "iSIPs" to distinguish them from other types of SIP submittals (such as nonattainment area SIPs, maintenance SIPs, etc.).
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for an iSIP submission, and section 110(a)(2) provides details concerning the required content of the submission (often called iSIP "elements"). The comments in this document are specific to "elements" of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Comments:
1)  In Section <IP_ADDRESS>, "2009-2011 Meteorology was Conducive to Ozone Formation" the discussion regarding the Allegan, Michigan monitor includes an analysis of whether meteorology during the 2009-2011 period was conducive to ozone formation. This analysis states that although the meteorological conditions in 2009 were not conducive to ozone formation, the meteorology in both 2010 and 2011 was "clearly conducive" to ozone formation and that therefore "the inclusion of these two years in the alternative base period means that the base period as a whole did include meteorology that was conducive to ozone formation.". The EPA recommends the MoDNR include additional support for the statement that the 2009-2011 base period "as a whole" was conducive to ozone formation despite the inclusion of 2009, which according to Figure 1 was the 5[th] coldest summer on record for Michigan.
2)   In Section 3.5.2, "Other Considerations Regarding the Allegan Monitor", begins a discussion related to the Allegan, Michigan monitor, and specifically an analysis of Missouri's "share of emission reduction obligations" in comparison to other upwind states. Rather than suggesting a remedy for Missouri's proportional share of the downwind air quality problem, Missouri instead proposes to conclude that the state's share is sufficiently small and within a 5 ppb margin of error of the modeling.  EPA recommends the MoDNR further explain how they derived the 5ppb modeling error as it does not match region-specific or state-specific performance stats in Appendix A of the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values.

 In Table 7 of Section <IP_ADDRESS>, MoDNR lists a number of anticipated retirements that were
apparently not reflected in EPA's 2023 modeling.  EPA recommends the MoDNR provide a basis for asserting that these retirements are anticipated before 2023 (e.g., public announcements or filings) and if this information is not available, EPA recommends removing the table from the SIP. Moreover, while MoDNR lists the anticipated tons of reduction from each unit, the SIP would be further strengthened if MoDNR evaluated potential shifts in generation resulting from the anticipated retirements and how that might affect the state's overall emission trends and downwind contribution to the Allegan maintenance receptor.

  In Section <IP_ADDRESS> "International and Initial and Boundary (I&B) Contributions", EPA recommends MoDNR address why it is technically and legally supportable to subtract 100% of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic contributions from Canada and Mexico from the projected design value (and why it is appropriate to also subtract 2% of initial and boundary conditions), especially when the total contribution from these sectors is barely greater than 1 ppb in Missouri's calculation.

 EPA encourages Missouri to include a comprehensive analysis of the existing controls on sources, NOx reduction potential, and cost of controls for sources, including EGU and non-EGU sources or facilities.  An assessment of factors that influence EGU emissions (such as but not limited to allowance prices, fuel prices, and enforceable limits) in the future is recommended.   EPA encourages Missouri to include a comprehensive assessment of all of the NOx emitting non-EGU facilities, including their NOx emissions sources/units, reduction potential, and cost of any potential control options. Showing that no further cost-effective reductions are available, if that is the case, will bolster the strength/approvability of the submittal.

 EPA recommends MoDNR strengthen its SIP by showing that the relied upon emission rates used in the 2023 modeling for SCR controlled units (that reflect operation) are reasonable estimates for future expected operations of those controls (in particular for units that have shown high degrees of variability in past control operation (e.g., Thomas Hill, New Madrid)). Adding certainty to its emission projections through these types of considerations is useful for demonstrating no risk of emission reductions being offset by changes in control operation.

 In Section 1.1, "Good Neighbor Obligations for the 1997 and 2008 Ozone NAAQS, the MoDNR states that the NOx SIP Call and the NOx Budget Program addressed the 1997 ozone standard.  While the NOx SIP Call was originally promulgated to address both the 1979 and the 1997 ozone standards, the EPA subsequently stayed the implementation of the NOx SIP Call for purposes of addressing the 1997 standard.  65 Fed. Reg. 56,245.  Accordingly, when the NOx Budget Program was implemented, it only addressed the good neighbor provision obligations for the 1979 ozone standard.  EPA recommends MoDNR revise the language in this section to reflect the clarification.

 In Section 1.2.1, "CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and EPA's 4-Step Process", the MoDNR incorrectly recites the third step of the four-step process that the EPA has used to evaluate interstate ozone transport.  EPA recommends the MoDNR revise the description of step 3 as follows: "Identify the requisite level of emission control necessary to address the upwind state's significant contribution to the air pollution problem or interference with maintenance in the downwind states."

 In Section 1.2.4 "EPA Memo-Alternative Methods of Identifying Maintenance Monitors", the MoDNR incorrectly describes the EPA's October 2018 memorandum as stating that states "may not need to address identified maintenance monitors" if they meet certain criteria based on an alternative base year. EPA recommends the MoDNR revise the language to reflect the memorandum outlines alternative approaches (or flexibilities) that states may use to identify a monitor as a maintenance receptor, and with an appropriate technical demonstration, states may eliminate a site as a maintenance receptor based on currently measured clean data or use a design value from the base period that is not the maximum design value.

 In several locations throughout the document, the MoDNR incorrectly refers to 1 ppb and 1% of the NAAQS as "significance thresholds" or "significant contribution thresholds." The EPA notes that such as thresholds are more correctly referred to as a contribution threshold and that a contribution threshold alone is not intended to represent the level of a "significant contribution," but rather a contribution that merits more consideration to determine whether a state impacting a downwind receptor above that threshold will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS.  EPA recommends the MoDNR revise the language throughout the document to reflect the change.