[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4585]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01768]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-001]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed January 14, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through January 24, 2022 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220008, Draft, FTA, WA, West Seattle and Ballard Link
Extensions, Comment Period Ends: 04/28/2022, Contact: Mark Assam 206-
220-4465.
EIS No. 20220009, Final, FTA, OR, Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Review Period Ends: 02/28/2022,
Contact: Mark Assam<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220010, Final, USFS, MT, Land Management Plan, Custer
Gallatin National Forest, Review Period Ends: 02/28/2022, Contact:
Mariah Leuschen-Lonergan<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 25, 2022.
Marthea Rountree,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-01768 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36768]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-94-001; EL06-77-000]

ISO-New England Inc.; Notice of Institution of Proceeding and
Refund Effective Date

June 19, 2006.
    On June 16, 2006, the Commission issued an order that instituted a
proceeding in Docket No. EL06-77-000, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2005), concerning the justness
and reasonableness of ISO-New England Inc.'s external affairs and
corporate communications expenses. ISO-New England, Inc., 115 FERC ]
61,332 (2006).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL06-77-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10124 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4610-4611]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1892]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66230; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-008]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding a Clerical Change to Nasdaq Rule 5730

January 24, 2012.
    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 11, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to make clerical corrections to correct cross
references in Rule 5730 of the Nasdaq rulebook. Nasdaq proposes to
implement the proposed rule change immediately.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on Nasdaq's Web
site http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at Nasdaq's principal office, 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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq proposes to make clerical corrections to update certain
cross-references in Rules 5730(b)(2) and (b)(3). Nasdaq incorrectly
changed these cross-references when the listing rules were relocated
from the Rule 4000 Series of the Nasdaq Rulebook to the Rule 5000
Series \3\ and they now reference rules that do not exist. This rule
filing will correct those cross-references. The Exchange is not making
any substantive changes to Rule 5730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59663 (March 31, 2009),
74 FR 15552 (April 6, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change is consistent with these
provisions in that it will eliminate confusion about Nasdaq rules by
correcting inaccurate cross-references to rules that have been
renumbered, without changing the substance of the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3)
thereunder,\7\ Nasdaq has designated this proposal as one that is
concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, Nasdaq believes this proposal should become
immediately effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-008. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-008 and should be submitted on
or before February 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1892 Filed 1-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58683-58685]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0213; FMCSA-2015-0323]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 12
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before December
20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0213; FMCSA-2015-0323
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket Nos. FMCSA-2015-0323; FMCSA-2014-0213), indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit
your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if
there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the

docket numbers, FMCSA-2014-0213; FMCSA-2015-0323, in the keyword box,
and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the
``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box on the
following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an
individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket numbers, FMCSA-2014-0213; FMCSA-2015-0323, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for up to five years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve
a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce (49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5).
    The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly,
FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and
decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 12
drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have
maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical
issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV
during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data.
For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the
State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an
adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes
that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of
two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of September
and are discussed below:
    As of September 9, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Mark D. Anderson (NC)
Jeremy N. Bradford (AL)
Jeffrey B. Green (CA)
Stephen M. Harmon (WV)
Donald A. Horst (MD)
Kyle P. Loney (WA)
Leigh P. Mallory (VT)
Raymond H. VanDeMark (NJ)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0323. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 9, 2018, and will expire on
September 9, 2020.
    As of September 16, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Lee H. Anderson (MA)
Gary A. Combs, Jr. (KY)
Roland K. Mezger (PA)
Robert Thomas, Jr. (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0213. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 16, 2018, and will expire on
September 16, 2020.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy

of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in
the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption
will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: November 9, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-25278 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. wpd MEMORANDUM TO: File; Carey Johnston, USEPA/ EAD FROM: Mary Willett and Anne Jones, ERG DATE: August 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Lost Production  New O& G Extraction Fixed Facility Costing This memorandum documents the assumption that there will be no lost production for new oil and gas ( O& G) extraction fixed platform facilities due to incremental 316( b) Phase III compliance costs.

Lost production for an O& G extraction facility could occur if an oil company made a decision to shut in a facility early due to the incremental costs associated with cooling water intake structure operation and maintenance ( CWIS O& M.) The decision to shut in a facility is generally made on an annual, semi annual, or at most quarterly basis. At the end of a fixed facility production life, the costs of production would be in the $ 3.7 million/ year range and the incremental CWIS O& M costs are estimated to be in the $ 37,000/ year range. Therefore, the incremental CWIS O& M costs are approximately 0.1 % of the production costs and would not impact a quarterly, semiannual or annual shut in decision. Well shut in decisions will be much more sensitive to the price of oil and gas.

Preliminary economic analysis shows that the costs of the Phase III rule are highly unlikely to have any production effects on new deepwater platforms, nor are these costs expected to pose a barrier to entry to new oil and gas development. The economic modeling does not indicate that production is very sensitive to costs estimated at the current order of magnitude.


[Federal Register: March 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 13340-13342]
[DOCID:fr19mr10-133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In January
2010, there were five applications approved. This notice also includes
information on three applications, one approved in September 2009 and
the other two approved in December 2009, inadvertently left off the
September 2009 and December 2009 notices, respectively. Additionally,
eight approved amendments to previously approved applications are
listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: Charleston County Aviation Authority, Charleston,
South Carolina.
    Application Number: 09-01-C-00-CHS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total Pfc Revenue Approved in this Decision: $7,933,920.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2011.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's:
    Air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Charleston International Airport (CHS).
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at CHS and
Use at CHS:
    Upgrade police radio communications.
    Design flight/baggage information display system.
    Modify terminal building, phase II--construct terminal rain cover.
    Rehabilitate passenger boarding bridge.
    Master plan update.
    Flight/baggage information display system.
    Terminal redevelopment and expansion--design.
    Standardize airfield signage.
    Restripe airfield taxiway and ramp edge.
    Improve airport access roads--design and construction.
    Terminal roof repairs--design and construction.
    Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning improvements.
    Rehabilitate passenger boarding bridges phase II--construction.
    Upgrade baggage makeup area.
    Miscellaneous security improvements.
    PFC implementation and administration.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at CHS and
USE at Charleston Executive Airport:
    Rehabilitate east/west taxiway, phase I--design.
    Construct new general aviation apron--design and construction.
    Improve runway safety area--runway safety area study, runway 9/27.
    Update airport layout plan.
    Rehabilitate east/west taxiway, phase II--construction.
    Reconstruct runway 9/27 and improvements to runway safety area--
environmental assessment and design.
    Reconstruct runway 9/27 and improvements to runway safety area--
construction.
    Relocate runway 9/27 glide slope.
    Pavement repairs to north south taxiway--runway 4/22.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at CHS and
Use at Mt. Pleasant Regional Airport:
    Rehabilitate airfield lighting.
    Update airport layout plan.
    Apron expansion project--design and construction.
    Terminal facility improvements--design and construction.
    Runway pavement overlay--design and construction.
    Sanitary sewer improvements--design and construction.
    Land use planning.

    Brief Description of Disapproved Project:
    Design terminal maintenance facilities.
    Determination: Disapproved. This project was found to be ineligible
in accordance with paragraph 601 of FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport
Improvement Program Handbook which limits eligibility of terminal areas
to those directly related to the movement of passengers and baggage.
The maintenance area is an ineligible, indirect support area of the
terminal.
    Decision Date: September 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Guss, Atlanta Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Santa Barbara, California.
    Application Number: 09-07-C-00-SBA.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $19,945,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1,2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2039.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled
I on demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Santa Barbara Municipal Airport.

    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:
    Airline terminal improvements.
    Decision Date: December 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darlene Williams, Los Angeles Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    Applications Number: 09-15-C-00-MKE.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $3.00.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $25,068,451.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2020.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2022.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at General Mitchell International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Noise compatibility program--phase II residential sound insulation.
    Noise monitoring system.
    Vacant land and residential property acquisition.
    Runway safety area construction--runways 1L, 19R, 7R, and 25L.
    Runways 1L/19R and 7R/25L intersection repaving--design.
    Runway guard lights.
    Inline baggage security design (phase 2).
    Terminal south escalator reorientation--design.
    Concourse D restroom renovation--design.
    Gate D52 design and construction.
    Cargo deicer pads.
    Expansion of fleet portion of combined maintenance facility--
design.
    Equipment storage building for snow plows--design.
    Acquire snow removal equipment.
    Cargo ramp gate 3D.
    Decision Date: December 31, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Nistler, Minneapolis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Counties of Colbert and Lauderdale, Muscle Shoals,
Alabama.
    Application Number: 10-06-C-00-MSL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $220,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1,2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: April 1, 2015.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:
    Terminal improvements.
    Decision Date: January 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Morgan, Jackson Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of New Orleans and New Orleans Aviation Board,
New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Applications Number: 09-10-C-00-MSY.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $70,531,906.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: July 1, 2023.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2026.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: On-demand air
taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$450 PFC Level:
    Northwest service (perimeter) road.
    Baggage handling system.
    Airfield lighting vault.
    Runway 6/24 downgrade.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level:
    Terminal apron rehabilitation.
    Facility improvement program.
    Utility building (design and construct).
    Concourse C and D sterile corridor.
    Decision Date: January 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Velayos, Louisiana/New Mexico
Airports Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Little Rock, Arkansas.
    Applications Number: 10-07-C-00-LIT.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $450.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $9,595,910.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2011.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2013.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: On-demand air
taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Little Rock National Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Runway 4R122L rehabilitation and safety area improvements.
    Runway 4L/22R rehabilitation and safety area improvements.
    Runway 18/36 rehabilitation and safety area improvements.
    Airfield lighting and surface movement.
    Taxiway reconstruction and repair.
    Apron rehabilitation and repair.
    Safety and security systems and checkpoints.
    Terminal improvements.
    Noise mitigation measures.
    Airport studies.
    Snow plows.
    Duct for new tower.
    PFC application administrative costs.
    Decision Date: January 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Bell, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Clark County Department of Aviation, Las Vegas,
Nevada.
    Applications Number: 09-08-C-00-LAS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $1,855,265,472.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2026.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: November 1, 2053.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators--nonscheduled/on-demand air carriers that
exclusively file FAA Form 1800-31 and enplane less than 2,500
passengers at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport.

    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use at a $4.50 PFC Level:
    Construction of terminal 3.
    Determination: Partially approved. The FAA determined that several
items identified by the public agency in the application's detailed
cost information as eligible were, in fact, not PFC eligible. As a
result, the FAA decreased the approved amount from that requested by
$200,262,528.
    Brief Description of Disapproved Project:
    Construction of heliport.
    Determination: Disapproved for collection. The FAA determined that
the public agency did not demonstrate that this project meets the
requirements of Sec.  158.15 and 158.17 with respect to PFC
eligibility, PFC objective, adequate justification, and significant
contribution.
    Decision Date: January 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Kelly, San Francisco Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 623.
    Public Agency: Bert Mooney Airport Authority, Butte, Montana.
    Applications Number: 10-09-C-00-BTM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $271,635.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2013.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's:
    Air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Bert Mooney Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Relocate airport perimeter road.
    Install medium intensity approach lighting system with runway
alignment indicator lights on runway 15.
    Rehabilitate taxiway D end segments (maintenance).
    Rehabilitate aprons (maintenance).
    Rehabilitate runway 15/33 (maintenance).
    Rehabilitate taxiway A.
    Environmental assessment for relocation of perimeter road.
    Pavement condition index survey.
    Wildlife hazard assessment.
    Acquire security equipment.
    Acquire friction decelerometer.
    Upgrade terminal heating controls.
    Decision Date: January 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Stelling, Helena Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
   Amendment No., city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04-01-C-01-GSN Saipan, MP.......        01/13/10     $29,920,680     $29,533,680        08/01/16        08/01/16
04-01-C-01-GRO Rota, MP.........        01/13/10       1,797,042       1,775,542        08/01/16        08/01/16
04-01-C-01-TNI Tinian, MP.......        01/13/10       1,724,826       1,703,326        08/01/16        08/01/16
92-01-C-08-SJU San Juan, PR.....        01/13/10      47,738,284      45,027,956        05/01/97        05/01/97
93-02-U-04-SJU San Juan, PR.....        01/13/10              NA              NA        05/01/97        05/01/97
07-05-C-01-JST Johnstown, PA....        01/14/10         132,000         285,335        04/01/10        05/01/14
03-10-C-02-BNA Nashville, TN....        01/14/10       5,773,678       2,591,683        10/01/02        10/01/02
06-12-C-03-BNA Nashville, TN....        01/14/10      11,400,201      10,066,488        10/01/10        09/01/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 11, 2010.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-5900 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72744-72745]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30322]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65790; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-150]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Reduce
Transaction Fees for Members Engaging in Certain Accommodation
Transactions

November 18, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 7, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 its Fee Schedule to adopt a
transaction fee for members transacting certain Accommodation
Transactions, specifically cabinet trading.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ``accommodation'' or ``cabinet'' trade refers to trades
in listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not actively
traded. Cabinet trading is generally conducted in accordance with
Exchange Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 1059 entitled
``Accommodation Trading'', which sets forth specific procedures for
engaging in cabinet trading below $1 per option contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on December 1, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to create a new fee for
equity options transactions executed pursuant to Exchange Rule 1059
entitled ``Accommodation Trading.'' Cabinet or accommodation trading of
option contracts is intended to accommodate persons wishing to effect
closing transactions in those series of options dealt in on the
Exchange for which there is no auction market.\4\ Currently, the fees
which members are assessed when transacting cabinet trades are the
standard equity option fees.\5\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
fee reduction will encourage members to transact cabinet trades on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On December 30, 2010, the Exchange extended a pilot program
through December 1, 2011 to allow cabinet transactions to take place
in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option
contract. These lower priced transactions are traded pursuant to the
same procedures applicable to $1 cabinet trades, except that
pursuant to the pilot program (i) bids and offers for opening
transactions are only permitted to accommodate closing transactions
in order to limit use of the procedure to liquidations of existing
positions, and (ii) the procedures are also made available for
trading in options participating in the Penny Pilot Program. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64571 (May 31, 2011), 76 FR
32385 (June 6, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-72).
    \5\ The equity options fees are in Section II of the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to reduce transaction fees to $.10 per
contract for Cabinet Trades which occur pursuant to Rule 1059, for all
participants, except Customers.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to assess a $.10 per contract transaction charge on Professionals,\7\
Specialists,\8\ Registered Options Traders,\9\ SQTs,\10\ RSQTs,\11\
Broker-Dealers and Firms. Customers would continue to remain free of
charge when transacting cabinet trades. Additionally, the Exchange
currently waives the Firm equity options transaction fees for members
executing facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 when such
members are trading in their own proprietary account.\12\ Similar to
the equity option fees, which are currently subject to the
aforementioned waiver, the Exchange would continue to apply the waiver
to members executing facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064
to cabinet trade equity option transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange is not proposing to otherwise amend its equity
option fees.
    \7\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \8\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \9\ A Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') includes a Streaming
Quote Trader (``SQT''), a Remote Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'')
and a Non-SQT, which by definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. A
Registered Option Trader is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) as a
regular member or a foreign currency options participant of the
Exchange located on the trading floor who has received permission
from the Exchange to trade in options for his own account. See
Exchange Rule 1014 (b)(i) and (ii).
    \10\ An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is
assigned.
    \11\ An RSQT is defined Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an
ROT that is a member or member organization with no physical trading
floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to
generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to
which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such
quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange.
    \12\ The waiver does not apply to orders where a member is
acting as agent on behalf of a non-member. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 60477 (August 11, 2009), 74 FR 41777 (August 18,
2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-67).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to capture the necessary information electronically, the
Exchange requires members to designate on the trade ticket that the
option trade is a cabinet trade by entering the code, ``Z5'', on the
trading ticket and into the system, or directly into the Floor Broker
Management System (``FBMS'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FBMS is designed to enable Floor Brokers and/or their
employees to enter, route and report transactions stemming from
options orders received on the Exchange. FBMS also is designed to
establish an electronic audit trail for options orders represented
and executed by Floor Brokers on the Exchange, such that the audit
trail provides an accurate, time-sequenced record of electronic and
other orders, quotations and transactions on the Exchange, beginning
with the receipt of an order by the Exchange, and further
documenting the life of the order through the process of execution,
partial execution, or cancellation of that order. See Exchange Rule
1080, Commentary .06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has

designated these changes to be operative on December 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \15\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to lower the fees for
cabinet trades to incentivize members to transact cabinet trades. The
proposed fees for cabinet trades would be lower for all market
participants, except Customers who will remain free of charge. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to not assess Customers a fee for transacting cabinet
trades because Customer order flow attracts liquidity to the Exchange
which in turn benefits of all market participants. The Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to amend
and lower fees for cabinet trades because all market participants will
be assessed a uniform transaction fee, with the exception of Customers
who will not be assessed a fee. The Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated assesses fees for cabinet trading that are within the
range of fees proposed by the Exchange.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61295 (January 6,
2010), 75 FR 2166 (January 14, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2009-098) (A rule
change to assess equity option transaction fees for cabinet trades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable
market participants readily can, and do, send order flow to competing
exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be
excessive. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee must be
competitive with fees offered on other options exchanges. The Exchange
believes that this competitive marketplace impacts the fees present on
the Exchange today and influences the proposals set forth above.

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

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

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

    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.\17\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2011-150 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-150. 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
a.m. and 3 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-150 and should be
submitted on or before December 16, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30322 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13399-13401]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG11-64-000.
    Applicants: Alta Wind III Owner Lessor A.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Alta Wind III Owner Lessor A.

    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: EG11-65-000.
    Applicants: Alta Wind III Owner Lessor B.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Alta Wind III Owner Lessor B.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: EG11-66-000.
    Applicants: Alta Wind III Owner Lessor C.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Alta Wind III Owner Lessor C.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: EG11-67-000.
    Applicants: Alta Wind III Owner Lessor D.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Alta Wind III Owner Lessor D.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-39-001.
    Applicants: Flat Water Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Notice of Non-Material Change in Status
of Flat Water Wind Farm, LLC.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-4109-007; ER03-427-009; ER99-3426-013; ER05-
440-005; ER03-175-011.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Sempra Energy, Inc.
    Description: San Diego Gas & Electric Company Supplement to Notice
of Category 1 Status for Northwest Region.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-4109-008; ER09-1655-003; ER09-1453-004; ER03-
427-010; ER04-170-012; ER99-3426-014; ER08-100-013; ER01-1178-008;
ER03-175-012.
    Applicants: Sempra Energy Resources.
    Description: Supplement to Notice of Non-Material Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2128-004.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Filing of the California ISO in Compliance with FERC
Order.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110302-5247.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2458-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35: SCE Resubmits BPII Settlement LGIA SA No. 235 to be
effective 5/29/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2753-002.
    Applicants: Cedar Point Wind, LLC.
    Description: Cedar Point Wind, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Supplement to Revised Application for MBR and MBR Tariffs to
be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3010-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Company Notice of Cancellation of Rate
Schedules 46, 47, and 48.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110302-5246.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3011-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 217 of Florida Power Corporation to
be effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3012-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SCE Resubmits BPII Settlement Tie-Line RS
481 to be effective 6/3/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3013-000.
    Applicants: Coolidge Power LLC.
    Description: Coolidge Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Coolidge Power LLC Market Based Rate Schedule 1.0 to be effective 4/29/
2011.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3014-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of Engineering Study Letter
Agreement Blythe Solar Proj to be effective 12/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3016-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company Submits
Cancellation of Letter Agreement with Solar Millennium for the Colorado
River Substation Siting Study.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3017-000.
    Applicants: Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC.
    Description: Application of Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC under
for Authority to Sell Transmission Rights at Negotiated Rates and
Request for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES11-19-000
    Applicants: Northern Maine Independent Administrator, Inc.
    Description: Pro Forma Financial Statements of the Northern Maine
Independent Administrator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110303-5143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 14, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not
necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a
compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 4, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5587 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36485-36489]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0040; FRL-8685-9]

Approval, Disapproval, and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Montana; Kraft Pulp Mill Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule and Visible Air Contaminants Rule that the
Governor of Montana submitted to us on April 14, 1999. EPA is also
proposing to partially approve the recodification of the Kraft Pulp
Mill Rule that the Governor submitted to us on September 19, 1997.
These revisions recodify and make changes to the State's Kraft Pulp
Mill Rule, including the establishment of certain new opacity
requirements for kraft pulp mills, and modify the Visible Air
Contaminant Rule requirements for recovery furnaces at kraft pulp
mills. The intended effect of this action is to approve and make
federally enforceable those portions of the rules that meet Clean Air
Act requirements, and to disapprove those portions of the rules that
are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA is taking this action
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2006-0040, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, 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 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-
2006-0040. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 http://
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 http://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 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

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

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background of the State Submittals
III. EPA Analysis of the State Submittals
IV. Proposed Action
V. 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 word Act or initials 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 NAAQS means National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
    (iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (v) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

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
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 of the State Submittals

    On April 14, 1999 the Governor of Montana submitted a SIP revision
that contained changes to the State's Kraft Pulp Mill Rule, Visible Air
Contaminant Rule, and Incorporation by Reference Rule that had been
adopted by the Montana Board of Environmental Review (MBER) on May 19,
1995 and December 11, 1998 \1\. Montana's Kraft Pulp Mill Rule,
currently codified at ARM 17.8.321, applies to only one source,
Smurfit-Stone Container in Missoula, Montana. The SIP revision changes
opacity limits at Smurfit-Stone Container's recovery furnaces
3, 4, and 5, as described more fully below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On August 13, 2001 (66 FR 42427), we approved the changes to
the Incorporation by Reference Rule (ARM 17.8.302) that MBER adopted
on May 19, 1995; no further discussion of the Incorporation by
Reference Rule is included in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. MBER's May 19, 1995 Revisions

    The revisions MBER adopted on May 19, 1995 added definitions for
``cross recovery furnace,'' ``recovery furnace,'' and ``straight kraft
recovery furnace,'' (ARM 16.8.1413(1)(b), (f) and (h)); made minor
revisions to ARM 16.8.1413(7); and added ARM 16.8.1413(8) through
(12).\2\ ARM 16.8.1413(8) through (12) contained opacity limits on
recovery furnaces as well as the compliance monitoring methods for the
opacity limitations and reporting requirements. The revised rule
resulted in a 35% opacity limit on recovery furnace 3 and a
30% opacity limit on recovery furnaces 4 and 5. The
revised rule also required Smurfit-Stone to install continuous opacity
monitors (COMS) on the three recovery furnace stacks. Additionally, on
May 19, 1995, the MBER adopted a new provision (ARM 16.8.1404(4)(f)
later recodified as ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) and submitted to us on September
19, 1997 \3\), which provided that Montana's general opacity
requirements in ARM 16.8.1404 did not apply to recovery furnaces at
kraft pulp mills. These general opacity requirements require sources
installed on or before November 23, 1968 to meet a 40% opacity
limitation and sources installed after November 23, 1968 to meet a 20%
opacity limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These rules were later recodified; ARM 16.8.1413(1) through
(12) were changed to ARM 17.8.321(1) through (12). This
recodification was submitted to us on September 19, 1997 as part of
a general recodification of Montana's air rules.
    \3\ In a separate rulemaking action published on August 13, 2001
(66 FR 42427), we approved most of the recodification of the
Administrative Rules of Montana submitted on September 19, 1997. We
did not approve the codification of ARM 17.8.321, Kraft Pulp Mill
Rule, or ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) of the Visible Air Contaminants Rule. In
our August 13, 2001 action, we indicated that we would address the
revisions to ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) and 17.8.321 at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. MBER's December 11, 1998 Revisions

    On December 11, 1998, MBER adopted further changes and additions to
the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule, including changes to the May 1995 opacity
limits applicable to recovery furnaces 4 and 5. These
changes and additions were codified at ARM 17.8.321(9) through (16).
ARM 17.8.321(9) (applicable to recovery furnace 4) requires
that, for recovery furnaces installed after November 23, 1968, no
person may cause or authorize emissions that exhibit 20% opacity or
greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes for more than 6% of the 6-
minute time periods during which a source is operating in a calendar
quarter. ARM 17.8.321(10) (applicable to recovery furnace 5)
requires that, for recovery furnaces installed after September 4, 1976,
no person may cause or authorize emissions that exhibit 20% opacity or
greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes for more than 3% of the 6-
minute time periods during which a source is operating in a calendar
quarter. ARM 17.8.321(11) defines excess opacity emissions. ARM
17.8.321(12) indicates that sources subject to ARM 17.8.321(9) and (10)
may not emit opacity greater than 20% averaged over 24 hours. ARM
17.8.321(13) requires recovery furnaces and associated air pollution
control equipment to be operated in accordance with good air pollution
control practices during excess opacity emissions. Finally, ARM
17.8.321(14), (15), and (16) contain revisions to the compliance
monitoring methods and reporting requirements for kraft pulp mills.

III. EPA Analysis of the State Submittals

a. ARM 17.8.321(1) Through (7), Adopted May 19, 1995, Effective August
11, 1995, and Submitted April 14, 1999

    The State merely added definitions, made editorial changes, and
recodified the rule. Because the changes are consistent with Clean Air
Act requirements, we are proposing to approve into the SIP ARM
17.8.321(1) through (7) (formerly codified as ARM 16.8.1413(1) through
(7)). We are also proposing that ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7) will
replace the old codified version of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule (ARM
16.8.1413(1) through (7), effective December 31, 1972) that is
currently in the SIP.

b. ARM 17.8.321(8), Adopted May 19, 1995, Effective August 11, 1995,
Submitted April 14, 1999; and ARM 17.8.321(9) and (10), Adopted
December 11, 1998, Effective February 12, 1999, and Submitted April 14,
1999

    The table below shows the opacity limits in ARM 17.8.321(8), (9)
and (10) as compared to the existing SIP opacity limits for Smurfit-
Stone's three recovery furnaces.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Opacity limit six-   Opacity limit
                                                     minute  average    \***\ six-minute
Smurfit-Stone recovery  furnace  Installation date    (existing SIP-    average (revised   Exceedance allowance
            impacted                                  Approved rule,       rule, ARM         with revised rule
                                                      ARM 17.8.304)        17.8.321)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace 3.............  On or before 11/   40% \*\..........  35%..............  None.
                                  23/68.            ARM 17.8.304(1)..  ARM 17.8.321(8)..
Furnace 4.............  After 11/23/68...  20% \*\..........  20%..............  6% of the 6-minute
                                                    ARM 17.8.304(2)..  ARM 17.8.321(9)     periods during which
                                                                        \****\.            a source is operating
                                                                                within any calendar
                                                                                quarter.
Furnace 5.............  After 9/4/76.....  35% \**\.........  20%..............  3% of the 6-minute
                                                    ARM 17.8.304(4)..  ARM 17.8.321(10)    periods during which
                                                                        \****\.            a source is operating
                                                                                within any calendar
                                                                                quarter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Sources not allowed to exceed opacity limit except a maximum opacity of 60% is permissible for not more than
  one 4-minute period in any 60 consecutive minutes during the building of new fires, cleaning of grates, or
  soot blowing (ARM 17.8.304(3)).
\**\ ARM 17.8.304(4)(d) indicates that the 20% opacity standard in ARM 17.8.304(2) does not apply to ``those new
  stationary sources listed in ARM 17.8.340 for which a visible emission standard has been promulgated.'' ARM
  17.8.340 cross-references EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Under the State's interpretation,
  Furnace 5 is thus subject to the NSPS opacity standard for kraft pulp mills instead of the 20% SIP
  standard. The NSPS opacity standard is 35% with a 6% quarterly exceedance allowance. See 40 CFR 60.284(d) and
  (e).
\***\ Sources not allowed to exceed opacity limit except for any exceedance allowance.
\****\ ARM17.8.321(12) contains an additional requirement that applies to recovery furnaces 4 and
  5: Opacity of 20% or greater as averaged over 24 hours is not permitted.

    Among other things, EPA evaluates SIP revisions against section
110(l) of the Act. Section 110(l) of the Act provides that we cannot
approve a revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
    Our evaluation of the changes to ARM 17.8.321(8), (9), and (10)
with respect to section 110(l) of the Act is as follows:
    1. ARM 17.8.321(8): We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.321(8)
because it does not contain an opacity exceedance allowance and it
imposes a more stringent opacity limit than the existing SIP on
recovery furnaces installed on or before November 23, 1968. Thus, no
increase in particulate matter emissions is expected from this change.
Accordingly, this revision would not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
    However, we are concerned that the second sentence of ARM
17.8.321(8), which applies to Smurfit-Stone recovery furnace
3, could be read more broadly than is appropriate. That
sentence indicates that the opacity limit in ARM 17.8.321(8)
``supersedes any other opacity limitation contained in this chapter,
including ARM 17.8.304 and 17.8.340.'' ARM 17.8.340 requires compliance
with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60. In
our view, a SIP rule cannot ``supersede'' a federal standard such as
the NSPS; instead, the NSPS is another requirement that may apply to a
source. A source is obligated to comply with the SIP's opacity
provisions for recovery furnaces and the NSPS.
    Accordingly, we note that while ARM 17.8.321(8) states that its
opacity limit supersedes ``any other opacity limitation contained in
this chapter'' (emphasis added), it does not say that its opacity limit
supersedes the federally-established opacity limits contained in 40 CFR
Part 60. Thus, it is our interpretation that ARM 17.8.321(8) does not
supersede the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60; instead, we interpret ARM
17.8.321(8) as establishing an additional standard. To the extent ARM
17.8.321(8) and 40 CFR Part 60 are both applicable, the source must
comply with both. In this case, because ARM 17.8.321(8) is more
stringent than the current NSPS opacity standards applicable to kraft
pulp mill recovery furnaces, compliance with ARM 17.8.321(8) should
ensure compliance with the NSPS opacity standard.
    2. ARM 17.8.321(9): We are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9).
Although the opacity limit of 20% in ARM 17.8.321(9) is the same
numeric opacity limit that is contained in the approved SIP, ARM
17.8.321(9) contains an exceedance allowance that is not in the
approved SIP. The exceedance allowance allows the source to exceed its
opacity limit a certain percentage of time each quarter; in ARM
17.8.321(9), the exceedence allowance is 6% of the 6-minute time
periods during which the source is operating. While the source is also
subject to an average daily opacity limit of 20%, per ARM 17.8.321(12),
our analysis indicates that even with this restriction, the opacity
limit in ARM 17.8.321(9) would be less stringent than the existing SIP
opacity limit (which is based on a six-minute average, not daily) and
could lead to an increase in particulate matter emissions, as
calculated using the source-supplied correlation between opacity and
particulate matter. Our analysis considers potential effects on
attainment of the PM10 and PM 2.5 NAAQS and
compliance with the PM10 increment under the Clean Air Act's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions.

    Regarding the PM10 NAAQS, we note that the
PM10 limit on Smurfit-Stone recovery furnace 4 was
relied on to help demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS
in Missoula County, Montana. Therefore, to show compliance with the
requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA, it would be necessary to
demonstrate that the revision to the opacity limit would not interfere
with continued attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and that the
PM10 limits on recovery furnace 4 would be met
during the exceedance allowance, assuming the 20% restriction on the
average daily opacity contained in ARM 17.8.321(12).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Opacity has long been used as an indicator of compliance
with emission limits; if opacity increases, PM emissions are also
likely to increase. 40 CFR 51.212 requires that SIPs include opacity
limits as a means to detect violations of rules and regulations.
Similarly, the NSPS imposes opacity limits but provides the option
for sources to petition EPA for a higher opacity limit if the source
can show that it complied with all other applicable limits during
performance tests under 40 CFR 60.8 but failed to meet its opacity
limit. See 40 CFR 60.11(e)(6). Our concern is that a relaxation in
the kraft pulp mill opacity limit could result in undetected
exceedances of the particulate emission limits if compliance with
the opacity limit would not necessarily reflect compliance with the
PM limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relative to this issue, the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) provided testimony to the MBER for its proposed
revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule. In its testimony, the MDEQ
attempted to show the effect of an opacity exceedance allowance on the
PM10 mass emissions for Smurfit-Stone's recovery furnace
4. The MDEQ concluded that the mass emissions allowed by the
State's proposed changes to the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule would be
comparable to those allowed by the current SIP. In order to make this
comparison, the MDEQ assumed the average opacity during use of the
exceedance allowance would not exceed the 20% standard by more than
10%; thus, 30% was the estimated average opacity during exceedance
periods. Additionally, MDEQ estimated particulate emissions using a
correlation equation developed by Smurfit-Stone \5\ and assuming
average air flow to the recovery furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Smurfit-Stone has conducted studies to correlate particulate
emissions with opacity readings at recovery furnaces 4 and
5, and the resulting correlation equations are used to
determine compliance with particulate limits at recovery furnaces
4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe this approach is flawed for two reasons. First, during
Smurfit-Stone's use of the exceedance allowance, the Kraft Pulp Mill
Rule does not limit exceedances to 30% opacity; thus, capping the
exceedances at 30% is expected to underestimate the predicted
particulate emissions. Second, using average, rather than maximum, air
flow to the recovery furnaces may also underestimate predicted
particulate emissions. Any demonstration to show that the
PM10 emission limits, and hence the PM10 NAAQS,
would be met should use worst-case scenarios.
    Using worst case scenarios, EPA conducted its own analysis of
potential PM10 emissions from recovery furnace 4.
Like MDEQ, we used Smurfit-Stone's correlation equation for recovery
furnace 4. However, we used worst-case assumptions for air
flow and opacity levels. Smurfit-Stone's furnace-specific correlation
equation is used by Smurfit-Stone and the State to calculate
particulate emissions from the furnace and is based on the opacity of
furnace emissions and air flow to the furnace. According to the State,
the equation is as follows:
    Recovery Furnace #4: Particulate emissions (pounds/day) = Q*C*K1*K2

Where:

Q = stack exit air flow in dry standard cubic feet per minute
(DSCFM) = 0.2322*(total air) + 14637 (total air = air flow into the
boiler (pounds/hour));
C = particulate concentration in grains/dry standard cubic foot
(DSCF) = (-0.1303*ln(1-opacity)) + 0.0008; opacity represented as a
decimal (10% opacity would be 0.10 in this equation);
K1 = conversion factor (1 pound/7000 grains); and
K2 = conversion factor (1440 minutes/day).

    In our analysis, we relied on the following considerations: With a
6% per quarter exceedance allowance, recovery furnace 4 could
exceed the 20% opacity limit up to approximately 131 hours per quarter
(8760 hours per year/4 quarters per year * 6 % = 131 hours per
quarter.) Thus, for a single 24 hour period, recovery furnace
4 could exceed the 20% opacity limit every six-minute period
during the 24 hour period and still have the ability to comply with its
exceedance allowance for the quarter. This means that, on a 24-hour
basis, ARM 17.8.321(12)'s 20% daily average opacity limit for recovery
furnace 4 is more controlling than the exceedance allowance.
    Accordingly, in our analysis we attempted to determine whether
compliance with the 20% daily average opacity limit would ensure
compliance with the daily particulate emission limits at recovery
furnace 4. Using the correlation equation, potential opacity
readings, and maximum gas flow rate, we found that meeting the 20%
daily average opacity limit would not assure that the 24-hour PM10
emission limits on recovery furnace 4 would be met. Our
analysis is contained in the docket to this action.
    In addition, the State did not provide us with any basis for
concluding that increases in PM2.5 emissions would not interfere with
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and that increases in PM10 emissions
would not jeopardize the PM10 increment.\6\ Based on the State's
submittal and our own evaluation, we are unable to conclude that the
revision in ARM 17.8.321(9) would not interfere with attainment of the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS or jeopardize the PM10 increment. Thus, we are
proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In a September 25, 1998 letter to the State, we indicated
that an evaluation of the impact on the PM10 increment must occur
because a relaxation of the opacity limit could result in increases
in actual emissions from the source. 40 CFR 51.166(a)(2), states
``If a SIP revision would result in increased air quality
deterioration over any baseline concentration, the plan revision
shall include a demonstration that it will not cause or contribute
to a violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. ARM 17.8.321(10): Because the 20% opacity limit in ARM
17.8.321(10) is more stringent than the 35% opacity limit in the
approved SIP, and ARM 17.8.321(10)'s exceedance allowance (3% per
quarter) is more stringent than the existing SIP rule's exceedance
allowance (6% per quarter), we are proposing to approve ARM
17.8.321(10). No increase in particulate matter emissions is expected
from this change. Thus, this revision would not interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

c. ARM 17.8.321(11) Through (16)

    ARM 17.8.321(11) indicates that excess opacity emissions for
recovery furnaces installed on or before November 23, 1968 means any 6-
minute average of 35% or greater and for recovery furnaces installed
after November 23, 1968 means any 6-minute average of 20% or greater.
ARM 17.8.321(12) indicates that for recovery furnaces subject to ARM
17.8.321(9) and (10), no person may cause or allow emissions that
exhibit a 20% opacity or greater as averaged over a 24-hour period. ARM
17.8.321(13) requires recovery furnaces and associated air pollution
control equipment to be operated in accordance with good air pollution
control practices during any period of excess opacity emissions.
Finally, ARM 17.8.321(14), (15), and (16) require recovery furnaces
subject to ARM 17.8.321(8), (9), and (10) to install and operate COMS
pursuant to certain requirements, and to report excess opacity
emissions.

    We note that ARM 17.8.321(15) indicates that COMS will be the
primary measure of compliance with the opacity limits in the rule, but
that EPA Method 9 may be used as a measure of compliance when there is
a reason to believe the COMS data are not accurate or when COMS data
are unavailable. We do not believe this language was intended to
preclude the use of Method 9 readings as credible evidence of
compliance in circumstances other than those specified in the rule, and
we propose to interpret the rule accordingly.
    Because the above provisions will not reduce the stringency of the
existing federally-approved SIP, we consider them to be consistent with
the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve ARM 17.8.321(11) through (16).

d. ARM 17.8.304(4)(f)

    As part of the April 14, 1999 submittal to us, the Governor
submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.304, the Visible Air Contaminants Rule.
On May 19, 1995, MBER added subsection (f) to ARM 16.8.1404(4) (now
codified as ARM 17.8.304(4)(f)). ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) excludes recovery
furnaces at kraft pulp mills from the statewide general opacity
requirements. We are proposing to disapprove the addition of this
paragraph because we are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9). If we
were to approve the addition of paragraph (4)(f), and disapprove the
State's new opacity requirements in ARM 17.8.321(9), kraft pulp mill
recovery furnaces installed between November 23, 1968 and September 4,
1976 would not be subject to any EPA-approved SIP opacity limits.

IV. Proposed Action

    We are proposing action on the revisions to ARM 17.8.304, ``Visible
Air Contaminants,'' and ARM 17.8.321, ``Kraft Pulp Mill Rule,'' that
the Governor of Montana submitted to us on April 14, 1999, and on the
recodification of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule that the Governor submitted
to us on September 19, 1997.
    We are proposing to approve the recodification of, and revisions
to, the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule found in ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7)
(formerly codified ARM 16.8.1413(1) through (7)). We are also proposing
that ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7), if approved, will replace the old
codified version of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule (ARM 16.8.1413(1) through
(7), effective December 31, 1972) that is currently in the SIP. We are
also proposing to approve the provisions in ARM 17.8.321(8) and (10)
through (16).
    We are proposing to disapprove the provisions of the Kraft Pulp
Mill Rule found in ARM 17.8.321(9). We are also proposing to disapprove
ARM 17.8.304(4)(f).
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before we take final
action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written comments to us as discussed in prior
sections of this proposed rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve and disapprove state law as
meeting and not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule proposes to approve and disapprove pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it 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).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve and disapprove portions of a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: June 4, 2008.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
 [FR Doc. E8-14622 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P