[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43627-43629]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19811]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81602; File No. SR-IEX-2017-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees Pursuant to Rule 15.110

September 13, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 30, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to make a correction to the Exchange
Fee Schedule related to fees for executions that involve taking resting
interest with non-displayed priority with a displayable order. The
Exchange proposes to implement the change beginning on September 1,
2017. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's Web site at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CRF 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX
Rule 15.110 (a) and (c), to make a correction related to the fees for
executions that involve taking non-displayed resting interest with a
displayable order. Subject to certain exceptions, the Exchange charges
$0.0009 per share (or 0.30% of the total dollar value of the
transaction for securities priced below $1.00) to Members for
executions on IEX that include resting non-displayed interest \6\ for
both the liquidity providing and liquidity removing order (the ``Non-
Displayed Match Fee'').\7\ One such exception relates to certain
displayable orders that remove non-displayed liquidity upon entry. The
Exchange Fee Schedule provides that the Non-Displayed Match Fee is not
charged for displayable orders \8\ that remove non-displayed liquidity
upon entry if, on a monthly basis, at least 90% of the liquidity
removing MPID's aggregate executed shares of displayable orders added
liquidity during the month

in question (the ``90% display discount'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Non-displayed priority refers to an order or portion of a
reserve order that is booked and ranked with non-display priority on
the Order Book. See Rules 11.190(b)(3) and 11.190(b)(2).
    \7\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange as the ``Non-
Displayed Match Fee'' on the Fee Schedule with a Fee Code of `I'
which is provided by the Exchange on execution reports.
    \8\ See Rule 11.190(b)(3).
    \9\ However, in such transactions, the non-displayed liquidity
adding interest will be subject to the Non-Displayed Match Fee. The
Exchange also does not charge a fee where the adding and removing
order originated from the same Exchange Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 7, 2017, the Exchange filed an immediately effective rule
change to reflect that the calculation used to determine if a Member's
MPID(s) qualify for the 90% display discount is done on a per MPID
basis (rather than a per Member basis, as originally reflected in the
Fee Schedule).\10\ The Exchange recently identified several
typographical errors in the parenthetical in the single asterisked
footnote related to the Non-Displayed Match Fee that describes the
calculation of the 90% display discount. While the single asterisked
footnote appurtenant to the Non-Displayed Match Fee is itself correct
regarding the conditions of the 90% display discount, the parenthetical
contains several typographical errors (as described below) and thus
does not accurately reflect the exact calculation of such fee. Further,
the rule change filing adopting the IEX Fee Schedule accurately
described the application of the 90% display discount.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 81346 (August
8, 2017), 82 FR 37973 (August 14, 2017).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78550 (August 11,
2016), 81 FR 54873 (August 17, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the parenthetical, which was intended to describe the
mechanical calculation of the 90% display discount, contains several
typographical errors. It currently states that the 90% display discount
is applicable if a Member's execution reports reflect that the sum of
executions with Fee Code L and a Last Liquidity Indicator (FIX tag 851)
of '1' (Added Liquidity) (i.e., collectively, the numerator), divided
by the sum of executions with Fee Code L (i.e., the denominator), is at
least 90% for the calendar month. As currently written, the calculation
as described in the parenthetical would include an MPID's non-
displayable orders that take displayed liquidity in the denominator,
because such orders would receive Fee Code ``L'' on their execution
reports, which satisfies the conditions for inclusion in the
denominator.\12\ Thus, the current parenthetical describing the 90%
display discount is not reflective of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, in
that it is too broad in its description of the denominator of the 90%
display discount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See the Investors Exchange Fee Schedule, Fee Code `L',
Taking Displayed Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to correct the parenthetical in
the single asterisked footnote appurtenant to the Non-Displayed Match
Fee in the IEX Fee Schedule to correctly describe the mechanical
calculation of the 90% display discount as follows (proposed new
language is underlined; proposed deletions are in brackets):
     * $0.0009 (0.30% of TDVT for <$1.00), otherwise FREE if
Taking Non-Displayed Liquidity with a Displayable Order and at least
90% of TMVD, on a per MPID basis, was identified by IEX as Providing
Displayed Liquidity (i.e., the [Member's] MPID's execution reports
reflect that the sum of executions with Fee Code L and a Last Liquidity
Indicator (FIX tag 851) of `1' (Added Liquidity) on orders with neither
a Max Floor (FIX tag 111) equal to zero, nor a time-in-force (FIX tag
59) of `3' (IOC) or `4' (FOK), divided by the sum of all executions on
orders with neither a Max Floor (FIX tag 111) equal to zero, nor a
time-in-force (FIX tag 59) of `3' (IOC) or `4' (FOK) [with Fee Code L],
is at least 90% for the calendar month).
    As modified, the parenthetical would make clear that all of an
MPID's executions that receive Fee Code L and a Last Liquidity
Indicator of `1' (which together indicate that an order added displayed
liquidity) on all of an MPID's displayable orders (which necessarily
includes all orders that have neither a Max Floor value of zero,\13\
nor a time-in-force of immediate-or-cancel \14\ or fill-or-kill time
\15\) contribute to the numerator of the 90% display discount. Further,
the denominator would be equal to the sum of all executions of an
MPID's displayable orders (i.e., all orders that have neither a Max
Floor value of zero, nor a time-in-force of immediate-or-cancel or
fill-or-kill time), regardless of the Fee Code and Last Liquidity
Indicator. To provide additional clarity, the Exchange also proposes to
revise the language describing the numerator to align such description
with the proposed description of the denominator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A Max Floor of zero is an instruction not to display any
portion of an order.
    \14\ See IEX Rule 11.190(c)(1).
    \15\ See IEX Rule 11.190(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \16\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) \17\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using
its facilities. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is
consistent with the Act to correct the Fee Schedule so that the Fee
Schedule is accurate, avoiding any potential confusion among Members.
The Exchange further believes that the correction to the Fee Schedule
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because all
similar situated Members will continue to be subject to the same fee
structure. Moreover, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the
Act to clarify the calculation used to determine the 90% display
discount, so that the Exchange's Fee Schedule remains transparent and
consistent with the expectations of its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    IEX 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. The proposed rule change is
designed to correct an inadvertent error rather than a competitive
issue. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will
result in a burden on intramarket competition because all Members will
continue to be subject to the Non-Displayed Match Fee and will be
eligible for the 90% display discount in the same manner on a fair and
consistent basis. While different fees will be assessed in some
circumstances, these different fees are not based on the type of Member
entering the order and all Members can submit any type of order.
Lastly, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in
which market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee
schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on intermarket competition because other
venues are free to adopt comparable pricing.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \18\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-IEX-2017-29 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2017-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2017-29, and should be
submitted on or before October 10, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19811 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31031-31033]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0392; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-4]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Big Timber, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Big Timber Airport, Big
Timber, MT, to accommodate the development of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure
procedures at the airport, for the safety and management of aircraft
within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0392; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-4, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy

Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order
7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Big Timber Airport, Big Timber, MT, to support IFR
operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at
the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0392/
Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-4''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Big Timber, MT. Class E
airspace would be established within an 8-mile radius of the Big Timber
Airport with a 12-mile wide segment extending to 27.4 miles east of the
airport, and a 7.6-mile wide segment extending to 12.5 miles west of
the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in
standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current,
and is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Big Timber, MT [New]

Big Timber Airport, MT
    (Lat. 45[deg]48'23'' N., long. 109[deg]58'42'' W.)

    That airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within an
8-mile radius of Big Timber Airport, and within 8 miles north and 4
miles south of the 074[deg] bearing from the airport extending to
27.4 miles east of the airport, and within 3.8 miles each side of a
253[deg] bearing from the airport extending to 12.5 miles west of
the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 24, 2017.
Sam S.L. Shrimpton,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-13985 Filed 7-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35886-35888]
[DOCID:fr22jn06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

June 15, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

     Docket Numbers: EG06-62-000.
    Applicants: Flat Rock Windpower II LLC.
    Description: Flat Rock Windpower II, LLC submits its notice of
self-certification of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to 18
CFR Section 366.7.
    Filed Date: 6/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006.

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

     Docket Numbers: ER01-1305-012.
    Applicants: Westar Generating, Inc.
    Description: Westar Generating Inc submits its compliance filing in
accordance with Article IV, Informational Filings of the Settlement
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 6/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2330-042.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc submits its fifteenth quarterly
status report in compliance with FERC's 9/20/02 Order.
    Filed Date: 6/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-563-059; EL04-102-015.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc submits a revised eighth
compliance report pursuant to the Commission's 6/2/04 Order.
    Filed Date: 6/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-0114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-845-002.
    Applicants: Pinpoint Power, LLC.
    Description: PinPoint Power, LLC submits its Triennial Updated
Market Analysis in compliance with Commission's 6/12/03 Order.
    Filed Date: 6/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-230-025.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits its
compliance filing of the accepted effective date to implement fifteen
minute scheduling pursuant to the Commission's 10/25/05 letter order.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-691-075; EL04-104-067.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits a supplement to its 3/27/06
compliance filing regarding the calculation and refund of Marginal
Losses Surplus under the Midwest ISO's OAT&EM Tariffs.
    Filed Date: 6/8/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 29, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-719-003.
    Applicants: Entergy Services Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc on behalf of Entergy Arkansas,
Inc submits its compliance Refund Report pursuant to Commission's 10/
21/05 Order.
    Filed Date: 6/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1452-003.
    Applicants: Duke Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Duke Power Co LLC submits replacement pages to its
Affected System Operating Agreement reflecting Duke Electric
Transmission's name change.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-0122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-451-004; ER06-641-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revisions to several
provisions of its Tariff related to the incorporation of the executed
external market monitor services agreement pursuant to FERC's 4/14/06
Order.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-0116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-800-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.;
FirstEnergy Service Company.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
and FirstEnergy Service Co on behalf of American Transmission Systems
Inc submits revisions to its Attachment O of its Third Revised Volume
No. 1 Tariff.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-971-001.
    Applicants: Exelon Business Services Company.
    Description: Exelon Business Services Co submits a revised tariff
sheet reflecting the effective date for the cancellation notice filed
5/8/06.
    Filed Date: 6/12/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-0113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-972-001.
    Applicants: Thornwood Management Company, LLC.
    Description: Thornwood Management Co, LLC submits an amendment of
its petition for acceptance of initial tariff waivers and blanket
authority application.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-0117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1079-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation; Indiana
Michigan Power Company.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power Co submits Original Sheet 19 to
its FERC Rate Schedule 102.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1125-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corp submits First Revised Sheets 6 et al. to
its FERC Rate Schedule 323, Revised Non-Conforming Long-Term Service
Agreement with NorthWestern Corp.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1128-000.
    Applicants: Mankato Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Mankato Energy Center, LLC submits its FERC Rate
Schedule No. 2, effective 7/14/06.
    Filed Date: 6/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-0115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC06-8-000.
    Applicants: Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited; BBI Energy
Partnership Pty Limited; BBI Networks (Australia) Pty Limited; BBI IEG
Australia Holdings Pty Limited.
    Description: Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited submits it's
notification of self certification of foreign utility company status
pursuant to PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060613-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: FC06-9-000.
    Applicants: SUEZ S.A.
    Description: SUEZ S.A. on behalf its direct and indirect
subsidiaries submit its self-certification of Foreign Utility Company
Status, pursuant to PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-5009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: FC06-10-000.
    Applicants: FortisOntario, Inc.; Newfoundland Power Inc.; Maritime
Electric Company, Limited; FortisAlberta Inc.; FortisBC Inc.; Belize
Electricity Limited; Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd.; Princeton Light
and Power Company, Limited.
    Description: FortisOntario submits a notice of self-certification
foreign utility company pursuant to PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-5025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: FC06-11-000.
    Applicants: Prisma Energy Nicaragua Holdings Ltd.
    Description: Prisma Energy International Inc., on behalf of Prisma
Energy Nicaragua Holdings Ltd., et al., submits its application for
Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status of PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH06-75-000.
    Applicants: TECO Energy, Inc.
    Description: TECO Energy, Inc. submits a Waiver of Notification of
the sections 366.21, et al. of the PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/13/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060613-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-76-000.
    Applicants: FPL Group, Inc.
    Description: FPL Group, Inc. submits a petition for waiver of
sections 366.21, 366.22, & 366.23 of PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-78-000.
    Applicants: Phelps Dodge Corporation.
    Description: Phelps Dodge Corporation submits an Exemption
Notification or, in the alternative, Waiver Notification of pursuant to
sections 366.3(b)(2)(ii) or 366.4(b)(1) of PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-79-000.
    Applicants: The Stanley Works.
    Description: The Stanley Works submits its Waiver Notification of
reporting requirements of PUHCA of 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-80-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Resources.
    Description: Sierra Pacific Resources submits its Waiver
Notification of requirements of section 366.21, et al. of PUHCA of
2005.
    Filed Date: 6/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060614-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-81-000.
    Applicants: UnionBanCal Corporation.
    Description: UnionBanCal Corp. submits its Exemption Notification
of section 366(b)(2)(i) of PUHCA of 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-82-000.
    Applicants: UnionBanCal Equities, Inc.
    Description: UnionBanCal Equities, Inc. submits an Exemption
Notification of sections 366.1 and 366.4.
    Filed Date: 6/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-5012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-83-000.
    Applicants: Bankers Commercial Corporation.
    Description: Bankers Commercial Corp. submits its Exemption
Notification of section 366.(b)(2)(1) of PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 6/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060615-5013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 6, 2006.
    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.
    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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9798 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62130]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EG15-2-000.
    Applicants: Lost Hills Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Lost Hills Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-3-000.
    Applicants: Blackwell Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Blackwell Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER14-2468-001.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Additional Changes to
Pending Order No 792 Compliance Filing (South Dakota) to be effective
7/22/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2715-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2014-10-07_SA 2690
Amended Big Stone Plant T-T IA to be effective 8/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2719-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2014-10-07_SA 2692
Amended Big Stone South-Brookings T-T to be effective 8/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2921-001.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 10-7-14_RS135 FCA-SPP
IM Anc Srvc Amend to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2923-001.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 10-7-14_RS114-117, 137
FCA-SPP IM Anc Srvc Amend to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2970-000.
    Applicants: TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.
    Description: Supplement to September 30, 2014 TransCanada Hydro
Northeast Inc. tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 10/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141003-5240.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-54-000.
    Applicants: Lost Hills Solar, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application for Initial
Market-Based Rate Tariff and Granting Certain Waivers to be effective
12/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-55-000.
    Applicants: Blackwell Solar, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application for Initial
Market-Based Rate Tariff and Granting Certain Waivers to be effective
12/6/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-56-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): TCC-
Sendero Wind Energy IA to be effective 9/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-57-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): TCC-La
Paloma Energy Center IA to be effective 9/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20141007-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 7, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24564 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67767-67771]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27564]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-1078; FRL-9751-3]

Revision to the South Coast Portion of the California State
Implementation Plan, CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking
System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a source-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision for the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(``SCAQMD'' or ``District'') portion of the California SIP. This
source-specific SIP revision is known as the CPV Sentinel Energy
Project AB 1318 Tracking System (``AB 1318 Tracking System''). The SIP
revision consists of enabling language and the AB 1318 Tracking System
to revise the District's SIP approved new source review (NSR) program.
The SIP revision allows the District to transfer offsetting emission
reductions for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10) and one of its precursors, sulfur oxides
(SOX), to the CPV Sentinel Energy Project (``Sentinel''),
which will be a natural gas fired power plant.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The index to the docket for this final action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While generally all
categories of documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., voluminous documents, copyrighted material), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3524<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The Facility and Prior Actions
    B. Description of Final Rule
II. Evaluation of Source-Specific SIP Revision
    A. What action is EPA finalizing?
    B. Public Comment and Final Action
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The Facility and Prior Actions

    The Sentinel Energy Project is designed to be a nominally rated 850
megawatt, natural gas-fired electrical generating facility covering
approximately 37 acres within Riverside County, adjacent to Desert Hot
Springs in the Palm Springs, California area. EPA's Federal Register
notices for the January 13, 2011 proposal (76 FR 2294), April 20, 2011
final action (76 FR 22038), and August 23, 2012 supplemental proposal
for this action (77 FR 50973) contain a detailed description of the
project and the Clean Air Act's (CAA) requirements for offsets during
new source review permitting.
    In response to our January 13, 2011 proposed rule, we received four
comments. We responded to those comments on April 20, 2011 (76 FR
22038). One commenter, jointly California Communities Against Toxics
and Communities for a Better Environment (jointly ``CCAT'') filed a
Petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (``9th Circuit'') shortly thereafter and an Opening
Brief on July 26, 2011. On September 14, 2011, EPA requested the 9th
Circuit to remand the

final rule to us to correct minor errors and revise our reasoning on
one issue. Motion for a Voluntary Remand of the Record, to Vacate the
Briefing Schedule, and to Stay the Proceedings During Remand, Case No.
11-71127 (Sept. 14, 2011). CCAT opposed EPA's motion for voluntary
remand. The 9th Circuit Appellate Commissioner denied EPA's motion for
voluntary remand on November 7, 2011, and ordered briefing. After
briefing and oral argument, the 9th Circuit remanded the final rule
(without vacatur) to EPA on July 26, 2012. California Communities
Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012). EPA published a
supplemental proposal on August 23, 2012, (77 FR 50973) and took
comment on the supplemental proposal through September 24, 2012. Copies
of the comments on the supplemental proposal have been added to the
docket and are accessible at www.regulations.gov. Comment letters from
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (``SCAQMD'' or
``District'') and CPV Sentinel LLC (``Sentinel'') support EPA's
approval of the AB 1318 Tracking System as a source-specific SIP
revision. A comment letter from CCAT opposes our proposal and
supplemental proposal to approve of the source-specific SIP revision.

B. Description of Final Rule

    We are finalizing our proposal and supplemental proposal to approve
the AB 1318 Tracking System into the SIP as a source-specific SIP
revision. Even with the slight revision to Attachment A discussed
below, the District transferred more offsets into the AB 1318 Tracking
System than the amount that is needed to allow Sentinel to operate. We
are finalizing our approval because the offsets listed in the Revised
Attachment A meet the federal offset integrity criteria, including
proper quantification and surplus adjustment. We are finalizing the
reasoning in our supplemental proposal for finding that the offsets
meet the requirement in 40 CFR part 51, appendix S and 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii) for offsets resulting from facilities or
sources shutting down to have occurred after the base-year for SIP
planning purposes. We are interpreting this provision to refer to the
2003 AQMP for PM10 for the South Coast and the Coachella
Valley Air Basins.
    In response to CCAT's comments on September 24, 2012, EPA is making
a slight revision to Attachment A to the Technical Support Document for
our supplemental proposal. Attachment A contains tables showing our
evaluation of a subset of all of the facilities from which the District
transferred offsets into its AB 1318 Tracking System. In this final
rule, we are attaching a slightly revised version of Attachment A to
our Response to Comments document. The only change in the Revised
Attachment A is that we have applied a more conservative assumption of
zero emissions for the data missing for the facilities listed in
Attachment A, Section II.B. The facilities listed in Section II.B were
missing Year 2 data. Our supplemental proposal assumed that the Year 2
data would be the same as the reported Year 1 data for these offsets.
Based on comments we received from CCAT, we changed the assumption for
this group of facilities. In our Revised Attachment A, we are assuming
that Year 2 data for these facilities is zero. This change means that
we are using the most conservative approach (zero emissions) to
quantify the offsets. This revision lowers the quantity of offsets
listed in Attachment A by 306 pounds for PM10 and 2 pounds
for SOX. Even with this adjustment the quantity of offsets
listed in Revised Attachment A exceeds the quantity that Sentinel needs
for operation. Because the District is committed to retiring all of the
remaining offsets in the AB 1318 Tracking System, including those not
listed in Attachment A, the net effect will be a greater reduction in
emissions than is required by the CAA.
    For additional background information, please see the January 13,
2011 notice of proposed rule for this action (76 FR 2294), the notice
of final rule (which was remanded without vacatur on July 26, 2012) (76
FR 22038 Apr. 20, 2011) and the August 23, 2012 supplemental proposal
(77 FR 50974).

II. Evaluation of Source-Specific SIP Revision

A. What action is EPA is finalizing?

    EPA is finalizing our approval of a SIP revision for the South
Coast portion of the California SIP. The SIP revision is codified in 40
CFR 52.220(c)(384) and incorporates by reference the CPV Sentinel
Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System, as adopted by the District.
    The SIP revision provides a federally approved and enforceable
mechanism for the District to transfer PM10 and
SOX offsets from the District's internal bank to the AB 1318
Tracking System for use by the Sentinel Energy Project.

B. Public Comment and Final Action

    Our detailed response to all significant comments is contained in
the Response to Comments (``RTC'') document in the docket for this
action. The RTC can be accessed through www.regulations.gov and a very
brief summary of our responses to certain comments is provided below.
Please refer to our RTC document for our complete response to all
comments.
Comment Letter from South Coast Air Quality Management District
    Comment: The District supported EPA's proposal and supplemental
proposal to approve the AB 1318 Tracking System based on the
quantification and surplus adjustment of the offsets listed in
Attachment A to the Technical Support Document for the supplemental
proposal. The District commented that its 2003 PM10 Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was the appropriate plan and attainment
demonstration to establish the base-year for SIP planning as set forth
in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii). The District also commented that
growth was added to the 2007 AQMP for PM2.5.
    Response: EPA agrees with the District's comments, as discussed in
the RTC document provided in the docket for this rule.
Comment Letter from Sentinel Energy LLP
    Comment: Sentinel also supported EPA's proposal and supplemental
proposal to approve the SIP revision on generally the same basis as the
District.
    Response: EPA agrees with Sentinel's comments, as discussed in the
RTC document provided in the docket for this rule.
    Comment: On October 26, 2012, Sentinel submitted a late comment
letter in which it requested EPA to use the good cause exception set
forth in section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately upon
publication in the Federal Register. Sentinel stated that the purpose
of the usual 30-day delay for rule effectiveness is to allow the
regulated entity an opportunity to make any changes necessary to be in
compliance with the rule. Sentinel stated that it has been aware of
what would be required of it as a result of this rule for 18 months.
Sentinel anticipates beginning its commission period in November 2012.
Sentinel added that if the power plant is on-line next summer, it will
help the region avoid any potential electricity shortfalls.
    Response: EPA has discretion to accept late comments and will
accept the comment submitted by Sentinel. EPA agrees with Sentinel that
it has demonstrated good cause for EPA to issue this final rule with an
immediate effective date. Sentinel has been constructing the power
plant for the

past 12 to 18 months in anticipation of beginning its commissioning
period in November 2012. Sentinel and the District provided information
regarding the potential effects of delaying commissioning and
operations beyond this date in the briefs submitted in the 9th Circuit
ligation pertaining to this rulemaking. Sentinel has indicated that it
will not be harmed by the immediate effective date. Therefore the final
rule will become effective upon publication.
Comment Letter From California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT) and
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) (collectively CCAT)
    Comment: CCAT contends that it was arbitrary and capricious for EPA
to publish a supplemental proposal to approve the source-specific SIP
revision after the 9th Circuit remanded the rulemaking to EPA without
vacatur.
    Response: CCAT is incorrect. EPA has discretion under Section 553
of the Administrative Procedures Act to supplement its existing
proposed approval of the source-specific SIP revision. We provided
notice of the supplemental proposal and a 30-day period for comments.
The 9th Circuit's Opinion in California Communities Against Toxics v.
EPA, 688 F.3d at 989 did not indicate that EPA could not supplement its
prior proposal.
    Comment: CCAT states: ``The Planning Year for the Failed 2003 AQMP
Cannot be the Base Year for Valid Offsets: In the Absence of an
Approved Attainment Demonstration for PM10, Only Replacement
Capacity Can offset New Emissions.''
    Response: EPA disagrees. CCAT asserts that the 2003 AQMP is ``no
longer valid'' because the South Coast and Coachella Air Basins failed
to be re-designated to attainment for PM10 in 2006. Based on
this presumption, CCAT argues that the SCAQMD is prohibited from
relying on offsets resulting from sources that shut down, unless the
new source of emissions is replacement capacity for the facility or
source that is shutting down. CCAT's presumption is incorrect. Failure
to attain a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (``NAAQS'') by the
attainment date does not invalidate the plan and attainment
demonstration--in this case the 2003 PM10 AQMP. The control
measures and strategies remain in effect and enforceable along with the
emissions inventories and attainment demonstration. Therefore, there is
no prohibition on using offsets from facilities or sources that have
shut down after the 1997 base-year from the 2003 PM10 AQMP
to allow new source emissions growth in the South Coast and Coachella
Air Basins.
    Comment: CCAT states: ``The 2007 AQMP Applies to PM10 as
well as PM2.5 Attainment.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with CCAT. The District adopted the 2007
AQMP to demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
approved the 2007 AQMP to demonstrate attainment with the
PM2.5 NAAQS. The minor references to PM10 in the
2007 AQMP for PM2.5 are included for a variety of reasons,
including to comply with California state law and to ensure continued
emissions control at one particular PM10 air quality
monitor. Minor references to PM10 for limited purposes do
not mean that the 2007 AQMP establishes a new base-year for
PM10. EPA does not consider the incidental inclusion of
PM10 control measures or updated emissions inventory for a
future maintenance plan to be the same as adopting a new AQMP for
PM10. EPA's approval of the 2007 AQMP does not mention
PM10.
    Comment: CCAT states: ``The 2007 AQMP Was Final At All Relevant
Times.''
    Response: Our supplemental proposal notes that the EPA had not
approved the 2007 AQMP at the time the SCAQMD approved transferring the
offsets into the AB 1318 Tracking System. EPA has not found any
authority establishing the correct date for an approved air quality
plan to apply. EPA reasonably determined that the date of transfer of
the offsets (i.e. when the offsets become enforceable) is an
appropriate date to establish what AQMP applies.
    Comment: CCAT states ``EPA Cannot Rely on the Failed, Superseded
2003 AQMP for a Base Year.''
    Response: CCAT appears to have raised the same argument in an
earlier portion of its comment letter. EPA considers this section to
provide additional argumentation of the same point presented in the
earlier paragraphs. EPA disagrees with CCAT's additional discussion.
CCAT has mischaracterized the Court's holding in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d
1245, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The Court held that the base-year should
be established by an ``approved'' AQMP and it did not use the term
``valid.'' As discussed elsewhere, the CAA does not define air quality
plans as ``valid'' and EPA does not consider the term to be dispositive
or persuasive regarding the appropriate AQMP to establish the base-
year. CCAT also comments at length on the appropriate method for adding
new source growth in the absence of an approved attainment
demonstration. EPA considers this portion of CCAT's discussion to be
irrelevant because the 2003 PM10 AQMP is the approved
attainment demonstration for PM10 for the South Coast and
Coachella Air Basins.
    Comment: CCAT states: ``The Offsets Transferred into the 1318
Tracking System are Not Quantifiable.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with CCAT and is finalizing our proposal
and supplemental proposal to approve the AB 1318 Tracking System
because the District transferred more properly quantified and surplus
adjusted PM10 and SOX offsets than Sentinel needs
to offset its PM10 and SOX emissions. CCAT
contends that EPA is required to use two years of emissions data to
quantify offsets. CCAT also asserts that two years of emissions data
cannot be satisfied with a conservative (i.e. fewer offsets) assumption
being used for missing data. Nothing in the CAA or EPA's regulations
requires EPA to use two years of emissions data to quantify offsets or
prohibits the use of a conservative approach for filling in missing
data. EPA is reasonably interpreting our regulations to allow the
District to exercise discretion to use a conservative approach to
quantify offsets where emissions data is missing. Here, we have
concluded that the District's quantification of offsets using a
conservative approach--specifically, by substituting zero emissions
when data is missing--is reasonable and consistent with the CAA and
applicable regulations.
    EPA is revising our final approval slightly from our supplemental
proposal to ensure that the most conservative estimation of data is
made regardless of whether the facility is missing Year 1 or Year 2
data. This means that EPA is reducing the amount of offsets we are
determining are properly quantified in Attachment A, Section II.B. to
reduce it by 306 pounds of PM10 and 2 pounds of
SOX. Therefore, whether a facility is missing Year 1 or Year
2 data, EPA is assuming the emissions for the missing data are zero.
    Comment: CCAT states: ``The Offsets Are Not Surplus.''
    Response: EPA disagrees. The offsets listed in Attachment A to the
TSD for the supplemental proposal are properly surplus adjusted to
comply with the CAA.
    Comment: CCAT states: ``Rule 1315, Which EPA Did Not Apply,
Dictates How the Surplus Adjustment after Deposit Occurs.''
    Response: EPA disagrees. The District removed the offsets in the AB
1318 Tracking System from its internal accounts and evaluated each
facility to determine if the offsets required surplus

adjustment. Rule 1315 requires the District to make an annual aggregate
adjustment to offsets in its Rule 1315 internal accounts. All of the
offsets in Attachment A, as revised, to the TSD for EPA's supplemental
proposal are properly quantified and surplus adjusted.
    Comment: CCAT states: ``If Rule 1315 Were Not Applicable, EPA's
Analysis Is Entirely Incomplete.''
    Response: EPA disagrees. Rule 1315 does not apply to this source-
specific SIP revision for the offset package for a single power plant.
All of the offsets in Revised Attachment A are properly surplus
adjusted.

III. EPA Action

    This source-specific SIP revision complies with all relevant CAA
requirements and is consistent with EPA's regulations and guidance.
Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving this source-specific SIP revision into the California SIP.
The changes in this final rule from EPA's proposal and supplemental
proposal are described above in Section I.B. EPA's interpretation of
the CAA and our regulations is provided more fully in our RTC.
    Our initial approval of this SIP revision and its related
incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations was
previously codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(384). Because the SIP submittal
has not changed since the initial approval and related codification,
and because the previous final rule was not withdrawn, we are not
revising the codification of our approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(384) in
this final action.
    This rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal
Register. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that rules may not take effect
earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.
However, APA section 553(d)(3) provides an exception when the agency
finds good cause exists for a rule to take effect in less than 30-days.
    The purpose of the APA's 30-day effective date provision is to give
affected parties time to adjust their behavior before the final rule
takes effect. The Sentinel Energy Project, to which this rulemaking
applies, requested in a comment letter to EPA that the rule be made
effective upon Federal Register publication.
    We find good cause exists here to make this rule effective upon
publication because implementing a 30-day delayed effective date would
interfere with CPV Sentinel's ability to begin commissioning in
November 2012 as scheduled. Such interference would delay Sentinel from
becoming fully operational by the summer of 2013, which is when the
California Energy Commission is expecting the plant to come on line.
This delay could result in significant impacts to electrical
reliability and air quality.
    In addition, this rule is not a major rule under the Congressional
Review Act (CRA). Thus, the 60-day delay in effective date required for
major rules under the CRA does not apply.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action will approve the source-specific SIP revision known as
the CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System into the
California SIP. This type of action is exempt from review under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a) (2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this final action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with

State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from
section 801 the following types of rules: rules of particular
applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and
rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5
U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA
is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under
section 801.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 14, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: November 1, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-27564 Filed 11-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34110-34111]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 440

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1012; Notice No. 14-10]
RIN 2120-AK44

Reciprocal Waivers of Claims for Licensed or Permitted Launch and
Reentry Activities; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; Reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This action reopens the comment period for the regulatory
evaluation associated with the FAA's January 13, 2015 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Reciprocal Waivers of Claims for Licensed
or Permitted Launch and Reentry Activities. The FAA has discovered that
this regulatory evaluation was not posted to the docket prior to the
close of the NPRM's comment period. Therefore, the FAA is reopening the
comment period to allow the public the opportunity to adequately
analyze the full regulatory evaluation for the NPRM. The FAA will
accept comment on the regulatory evaluation only, and not on the
regulatory changes proposed in the NPRM.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published on January 13, 2015
(80 FR 1590), closed March 16, 2015, and is reopened until July 15,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-
1012 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: 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.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralen Gao, ARM-209, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the ``Additional Information'' section
for information on how to comment on this proposal and how the FAA will
handle comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also
contains related information about the docket, privacy, the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is
information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

Background

    On January 13, 2015, the FAA issued Notice No. 14-10, entitled
``Reciprocal Waivers of Claims for Licensed or Permitted Launch and
Reentry Activities,'' 80 FR 1590. The FAA requested that comments on
that proposal be received on or before March 16, 2015.
    After the close of the comment period, the FAA discovered that the
regulatory evaluation associated with the NPRM was not posted to the
docket. Therefore, to ensure that the public has the opportunity to
provide comments specifically on the regulatory evaluation posted in
the docket (FAA-2014-1012), the FAA is re-opening the comment period
for 30 days to allow for comments on the regulatory evaluation only.
The FAA will not accept or address comments on the NPRM because the
comment period for the NPRM closed on March 16, 2015.
    Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 14-10 is reopened
until July 15, 2015.

Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the regulatory
evaluation, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate
comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or
if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one
time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring

expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the
comments it receives.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on June 9, 2015.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-14503 Filed 6-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 50268]
[DOCID:fr30se09-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0001-N-24]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Requirement (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on July 24, 2009 (74 FR 36807).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6292), or Ms. Nakia Jackson, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-
6470). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law No. 104-13, Sec.  2,109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as
revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5
CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking
public comment on information collection activities before OMB may
approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5,
1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On July 24, 2009, FRA published a 60-day notice
in the Federal Register soliciting comment on the ICR that the agency
was seeking OMB approval. 74 FR 36807. FRA received no comments in
response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to re-approve this proposed collection
of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30-day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection requirement (ICR) and the expected burden. The ICR is being
submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: State Safety Participation Regulations and Remedial Actions.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0509.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.33; FRA F 6180.61; FRA F 6180.67; FRA F
6180.96/96A; FRA F 6180.109; FRA F 6180.110; FRA F 6180.111; FRA F
6180.112.
    Abstract: The collection of information is set forth under 49 CFR
Part 212, and requires qualified state inspectors to provide various
reports to FRA for monitoring and enforcement purposes concerning state
investigative, inspection, and surveillance activities regarding
railroad compliance with Federal railroad safety laws and regulations.
Additionally, railroads are to report to FRA actions taken to remedy
certain alleged violations of law.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 10,748.
    Addresses: Send comments regarding these information collections to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20503;
Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
OMB at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of FRA, including whether the information will have
practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the
proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 24, 2009.
Kimberly Orben,
Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-23541 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P