5.................................  Existing grain elevator with
                                     capacity > DDa cutoffs, but then
                                     adds permanent storage capacity.
6.................................  Existing grain elevator with
                                     capacity > DDa cutoffs, and does
                                     modification or reconstruction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We then estimated the number of potential grain elevators, and
affected facilities within grain elevators, that would incur an
incremental cost and emission reduction for each scenario. The
estimates were developed by reviewing responses to a 2009 CAA section
114 survey and extrapolating the results over the next 5 years. For
further detail on the methodology of these calculations, see the
memorandum, ``Impacts of Grain Elevator NSPS Review,'' at Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0706.
    The requirements in the proposed subpart DDa that differ from
subpart DD are a revised applicability determination by incorporating
TSF capacity, control of affected facilities associated with TSFs,
annual opacity testing for affected facilities, PM testing every 60
months for affected facilities, weekly visual inspection of affected
facilities, inspection of fabric filters and baghouses every 6 months,
new recordkeeping requirements, reporting in ERT, a new opacity limit
for wire screen column dryers and a new opacity limit for barge
unloading stations using an en-masse conveyor system. These proposed
requirements would be incurred only by affected facilities that
commence construction, modification or reconstruction after July 9,
2014 (i.e., they would not be incurred by all affected facilities at a
grain elevator). Barge unloading stations using an en-masse conveyor
and wire screen column dryers are not expected to incur a cost or
emissions impact because data collected indicate that sources should be
able to meet the standards without additional controls. Particulate
matter testing every 5 years for affected facilities would occur
outside of the 5-year period analyzed because most construction,
reconstructions and modifications for grain elevators are expected to
occur after the first or second year following promulgation. The cost
for Method 5 PM testing is contained in the memorandum, ``Impacts of
Grain Elevator NSPS Review,'' at Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0706.
Based on information provided in the responses to the 2009 survey,
including permits, we believe grain elevators are already keeping the
records that we are proposing in subpart DDa, except for those
associated with visual monitoring. The only incremental cost estimated
for subpart DDa would be for control of affected facilities using fixed
equipment associated with TSFs, initial testing at affected facilities
that meet the subpart DDa applicability criteria due to TSFs, annual
opacity testing at affected facilities, weekly visual inspection of
affected facilities, inspection of fabric filters for affected
facilities every 6 months, the recordkeeping associated with visual
monitoring and inspections, and reporting in ERT. Eighty-eight grain
elevators, with 221 affected facilities, are projected to be subject to
the NSPS in the next 5 years, in one of the seven scenarios, because
they will construct, reconstruct or modify an affected facility. Table
5 summarizes the costs of this action. Capital costs are estimated to
be $1,087,000 to comply with the proposed requirements. We estimate
that the total increase in nationwide annual costs for the 221 affected
facilities at 88 grain elevators is $1,116,000 for the number of
affected facilities that are projected to be constructed, reconstructed
or modified by the fifth year following promulgation of subpart DDa.
Recordkeeping and reporting annual costs are estimated to be $83,000
for the number of affected facilities that are projected to be
constructed, reconstructed or modified by the third year following
promulgation of subpart DDa. We determined that the projected
compliance costs are reasonable as they are not expected to result in a
significant market impact, whether they are passed on to the purchaser
or absorbed by firms. Incremental emissions reductions of
PM10 for complying with subpart DDa using a fabric filter
are estimated to be 31 tpy.

   Table 5--Summary of the Costs of the Proposed Subpart DDa for New,
     Modified and Reconstructed Affected Sources at Grain Elevators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Capital cost  ($   Annual Cost \a\
            Requirement                 thousand)       ($ thousand/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM control........................              1,087                350
Emissions testing and monitoring/                   0                849
 reporting and recordkeeping......
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total nationwide..............              1,087              1,116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For the third year after promulgation, the associated annual cost
  (including annualized PM control cost and emissions testing and
  monitoring) is $757,000.

    In addition to reducing emissions, there are several benefits to
today's proposed rulemakings. The proposed subpart DDa rule eliminates
the startup, shutdown and malfunction exemption. The removal of SSM is
meant to ensure continuous compliance with the final standards. The
rule establishes a 5-year repeat emissions testing requirement. The
repeat testing requirement was established in a way that minimizes the
costs for testing and reporting while still providing the source and
the agency the necessary information needed to ensure continuous
compliance with the final standards. We are adding a requirement for
electronic submittal of performance test data. This simplifies
submittal for affected sources and having such data publicly available
enhances transparency and accountability through better public access
to pollution control data.

B. What are the secondary impacts for subpart DDa?

    We do not expect any indirect or secondary incremental air quality

impacts associated with subpart DDa. No additional control technologies
or operating standards are necessary to comply with the new proposed
standards for barge unloading stations and wire screen column dryers.
Additional solid waste impacts due to controlling total PM emissions
from grain sent to TSFs are estimated to be 116 tpy. Energy impacts are
estimated to be negligible.

C. What are the economic impacts for subpart DDa?

    The total costs associated with subpart DDa's proposed control
requirements and testing and monitoring requirements are $1.11 million
over five years for the total number of affected facilities that are
projected to be constructed, reconstructed or modified by the fifth
year following promulgation.
    The EPA also performed a screening analysis for impacts on all
affected small entities by comparing compliance costs to average sales
revenues. This is known as the cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales ratio,
or the ``sales test.'' The use of a ``sales test'' for estimating small
business impacts for a rulemaking is consistent with guidance offered
by the EPA on compliance with SBREFA and is consistent with guidance
published by the U.S. SBA's Office of Advocacy that suggests that cost
as a percentage of total revenues is a metric for evaluating cost
increases on small entities in relation to increases on large entities.
    These projected compliance costs are reasonable as they are not
expected to result in a significant market impact, whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by firms. The small business
screening analysis results indicated that approximately 98% of all
affected small facilities would have a cost-to-sales ratio of less than
1%, with a minimum cost-to-sales ratio of less than 1%, an average
cost-to-sales ratio of less than 1%, and a maximum cost-to-sales ratio
of 2.4%. The small business screening analysis results indicated that
the NSPS for Grain Elevators will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE).

VII. Other Considerations

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
requires federal agencies to ``. . . review existing rules that may be
outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to
modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has
been learned.'' A coalition representing the grain elevator industry
submitted a petition for the EPA to review and repeal the existing NSPS
for grain elevators in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD. In considering the
directives of the Executive Order and the coalition petition, the EPA
conducted several analyses aimed at determining the effectiveness of
the existing subpart DD standard, determining whether the standard is
still relevant and determining whether the standard was excessively
burdensome. The analyses and results are discussed in detail in the
memorandum, ``Evaluation of Grain Elevator Emission Standards in
Response to Executive Order 13563,'' in the grain elevator docket at
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0706.
    To address questions on the necessity and value of the standard,
the effectiveness of subpart DD in reducing emissions was evaluated.
Since the development of the original standard, the EPA has focused PM
emission control programs on limiting direct emissions of
PM10 (the smaller size fraction of PM) rather than total PM.
As a result, we analyzed the effectiveness of the NSPS for controlling
PM10. Three scenarios were assessed: (1) Emissions assuming
no regulatory requirements (no subpart DD or state rules), (2)
emissions assuming compliance with the subpart DD standards, and (3)
emissions assuming no subpart DD, but with state rules in place. A
comparison between these three scenarios indicates how effective
subpart DD is in controlling PM10 and whether repeal of the
standard could potentially effect emissions, considering state rules
for PM that are in place.
    As a first step in the analyses, we assembled a database of grain
elevators from: (1) Responses to a 2009 CAA section 114 survey sent to
grain elevators; (2) information gathered from state regulatory
agencies and (3) information gathered from the EPA's OECA and from the
USDA FSA. Uncontrolled PM10 emissions from this population
of grain elevators in the dataset were estimated using emission factors
from EPA's AP-42 document. Emissions after compliance with subpart DD
were estimated based on the typical controls that facilities use to
comply with the standards. In order to assess whether state
requirements are as protective as subpart DD, we reviewed the
PM10 control requirements in the 12 states with the highest
grain storage. These states are Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska,
Kansas, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Missouri and
Wisconsin. The review evaluated how each state implemented subpart DD
and also evaluated state regulations controlling PM10,
opacity and fugitive dust emissions that may be applicable to grain
elevators.
    We concluded that the NSPS achieves a substantial emission
reduction (approximately 85,000 tpy) of PM10 in these states
and significantly less emission reduction would be achieved if subpart
DD were to be rescinded and only the requirements in state rules were
applicable. The state PM rules that are applicable to grain elevators
are in most cases significantly less stringent than the NSPS.
    To assess whether the subpart DD standards are still relevant,
grain production projections from the USDA were evaluated to determine
if crop production is expected to increase in the future and
consequently increase the demand for grain storage. The USDA provides
crop production projections from 2010 through 2021 for corn, sorghum,
barley, oats, wheat, rice and soybeans, which are the typical crops
stored at grain elevators. A review of the projections shows that
production of wheat, sorghum, oats and rice is expected to remain
unchanged or decrease between 2010 and 2015, and between 2010 and 2021.
The production of corn, soybeans and barley is expected to increase
during these time intervals. The increases in corn, soybeans and barley
offset the decreases in the other grains and total production of grain
is projected to increase by 1.46 billion bushels (7.7 percent) by 2015,
and 2.79 billion bushels (14.8 percent) by 2021.
    A review also was conducted to identify if any new grain elevators
have been constructed in the last 5 years. We found that over the past
5 years three grain elevators with capacities greater than 2.5 million
bushels have been constructed and would likely be subject to subpart
DD. The results of the search show that grain elevators are continuing
to be constructed. Based on the pattern of information in the survey
responses and other information collection, some are replacements for
facilities that were shutdown and some are completely new facilities.
Given the high crop production, excepting the 2012 drought year, many
units added capacity, either as permanent or temporary storage, if a
new greenfield facility was not constructed. It is not known how many
of these grain elevators with increased capacity are subject to subpart
DD. While it cannot be determined how many new grain elevators will be
constructed in the future, or whether capacities at existing facilities
will be

increased, the projections show that there will be a significant
increase in the demand for grain storage. Based on activities of the
previous years in the grain elevator industry, a combination of new
elevators and increased capacities for existing elevators is expected.
    To address whether the standard is overly burdensome, we reviewed
the cost of complying with the subpart DD standards. Grain elevators
meet the PM emission limit using fabric filters. Fabric filters are
also routinely used for dust control for health and safety reasons
(e.g., prevent fugitive dust explosions); fabric filters that are used
for health and safety will meet the NSPS requirements. Therefore, for
most affected facilities, the specific cost that is associated only
with subpart DD is compliance testing. Subpart DD requires only an
initial Method 5 test for PM and an initial Method 9 test for opacity.
The cost for each initial Method 5 PM test is $12,200 and each initial
Method 9 opacity test is $2,500. Annualized over 5 years, the costs are
$3,000 and $610, respectively. There are no monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for subpart DD. Based on an evaluation of
these one-time costs associated with compliance, the EPA concluded that
the subpart DD standards do not impose an excessive burden on grain
elevators.
    Based on the results of these analyses, the EPA concluded that the
subpart DD standards are still effective, relevant and not excessively
burdensome.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2001).
    As described in section VII., the EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis
is contained in the memorandum, ``Estimated Impacts of Revisions to the
Grain Elevator NSPS'' in the grain elevator docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0706. The total cost of the revisions to the NSPS is estimated to be
$0.22 million per year over the next 5 years, totaling $1.11 million in
the fifth year.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The ICR document prepared by the EPA has
been assigned the EPA ICR number 2497.01 for 40 CFR part 60, subpart
DDa.
    The operating, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in this
proposed rule would be based on the information collection requirements
in CAA section 111, the EPA's NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 60,
subpart A), as well as state operating permits. The recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant
to CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than
emission data submitted to the EPA pursuant to the information
collection requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
treated according to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual average burden associated with the proposed revisions to
NSPS requirements is estimated to involve 3,300 labor hours at $110,000
and operation and maintenance costs of $265,000. The annual average
burden for the designated administrator is estimated to involve 810
labor hours at $54,000. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0706. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and
OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for
where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after July 9, 2014, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 8, 2014.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations
and small government jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small grain
elevators, cooperative elevators and small grain processors. We have
determined that 2 percent of all affected small grain elevators, or two
facilities, may experience an impact in total revenue of 2 percent.
    Although the proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by
minimizing testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to be only those essential to assuring compliance with the
NSPS.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year.
While there are hundreds of grain elevators in use, the new testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of subpart DDa
apply only to new affected facilities that commence construction on or
after July 9, 2014. The EPA projects that only 88 grain elevators will
be subject to the new requirements, and based on the burden estimate,
believes the costs to be minimal. Thus, this rule is not subject

to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Grain elevators are
not operated by government entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed action will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or local
governments and will not preempt state law. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
action from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). The EPA is not
aware of any grain elevators owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    The EPA specifically solicits comments from tribal officials on any
potential impact on tribes from this proposed action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 22,
1997) as applying 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
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on an analysis of the degree of emission reduction that is
achievable through the application of the best system of emissions
reduction, as provided in CAA section 111.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (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(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use (voluntary consensus standards)
VCS in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We conducted
searches for Performance Standards for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60,
subparts DD and DDa) through the enhanced National Standards Service
Network database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted VCS
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. Searches were
conducted for EPA Methods 5 and 9 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. During
the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described
technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the
EPA's reference method, we considered it as a potential equivalent
method. All potential standards were reviewed to determine the
practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant
method validation data which meets the requirements of EPA Method 301
for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy
equivalence to procedures in EPA reference methods. We may reconsider
determinations of impracticality when additional information is
available for particular VCS.
    One VCS was identified as an acceptable alternative to EPA test
methods for the purpose of this rule. The VCS ASTM D7520-09, ``Standard
Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor
Ambient Atmosphere'' is an acceptable alternative to Method 9 if
operated under specific conditions, documented in the memorandum,
``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Performance Standards for
Grain Elevators (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts DD and DDa)'', in the grain
elevator docket in EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0706. The search identified five VCS
that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference
methods. After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that
five candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 (2003),
ANSI/ASME PTC-38-1980 (1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA
Z223.1-M1977) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data
and other important technical and policy considerations. The EPA
welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and
specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS
and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ 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.
    The EPA has concluded that it is not feasible to determine whether
there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations
from the proposal of this rule because it is unknown where new
facilities will be located and the EPA does not have specific location
information for sources that would be affected by this NSPS. The agency
is seeking comment on the location of sources covered by the proposed
standards and on the potential impacts of this rule on minority, low
income and indigenous populations. The additional information that will
be collected from the increase in testing requirements is expected to
better inform the agency of the emissions associated with this source
category and their significance, and will ensure better compliance with
the proposed rule, and

thus will result in the proposed rule being more protective of human
health.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

    Dated: June 27, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 60.300 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.300  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of this section which
commences construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 3,
1978, and on or before July 9, 2014, is subject to the requirements of
this part.
0
3. Section 60.301 is amended by revising paragraphs (j) and (k) to read
as follows:

Sec.  60.301  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (j) Grain unloading station means that portion of a grain elevator
where the grain is transferred from a truck, railcar, barge, or ship to
a receiving hopper or to the grain handling equipment that connects the
unloading station to the rest of the grain elevator. A grain unloading
station includes all of the equipment, support structures, and
associated dust control equipment and aspiration systems required to
operate or otherwise connected to the grain unloading station.
    (k) Grain loading station means that portion of a grain elevator
where the grain is transferred from the elevator to a truck, railcar,
barge, or ship. A grain loading station includes all of the equipment,
support structures, and associated dust control equipment and
aspiration systems required to operate or otherwise connected to the
grain loading station.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 60.302 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.302  Standard for particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The unloading leg shall be enclosed from the top (including the
receiving hopper) to the center line of the bottom pulley and
ventilation to a control device shall be maintained on both sides of
the leg and the grain receiving hopper. Where aspiration of the casing
provides dust control at the boot of the conveyor and a receiving
hopper is not used, the unloading leg must be enclosed from the top to
the center line of the bottom pulley and ventilation to a control
device must be maintained on both sides of the leg.
* * * * *
0
5. Add Subpart DDa, consisting of 60.300a through 60.307a, to part 60
to read as follows:
Subpart DDa--Standards of Performance for Grain Elevators for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 9,
2014
Sec.
60.300a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.301a Definitions.
60.302a Standard for particulate matter.
60.303a Test methods and procedures.
60.304a Monitoring requirements.
60.305a Recordkeeping requirements.
60.306a Reporting requirements.
60.307a Modifications.

Subpart DDa--Standards of Performance for Grain Elevators for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July
9, 2014

Sec.  60.300a  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each affected facility
at any grain terminal elevator or any grain storage elevator, except as
provided under Sec.  60.304a(b). The affected facilities are each truck
unloading station, truck loading station, barge and ship unloading
station, barge and ship loading station, railcar loading station,
railcar unloading station, grain dryer, and all grain handling
operations.
    (b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences
construction, modification, or reconstruction after July 9, 2014 is
subject to the requirements of this part.

Sec.  60.301a  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and in subpart A of this part.
    (a) Capture system means all of the equipment, such as sheds,
hoods, ducts, fans, dampers, etc., used to collect particulate matter
generated by an affected facility at a grain elevator.
    (b) Column dryer means any equipment used to reduce the moisture
content of grain in which the grain flows from the top to the bottom in
one or more continuous packed columns between two perforated metal
sheets.
    (c) En-masse drag conveyor means a device that uses paddles or
flights mounted on a chain to remove grain from a barge or ship.
    (d) Fugitive emission means the particulate matter which is not
collected by a capture system and is released directly into the
atmosphere from an affected facility at a grain elevator.
    (e) Grain means corn, wheat, sorghum, rice, rye, oats, barley, and
soybeans.
    (f) Grain elevator means any plant or installation at which grain
is unloaded, handled, cleaned, dried, stored, or loaded.
    (g) Grain handling operations include bucket elevators or legs
(excluding legs used to unload barges or ships), scale hoppers and
surge bins (garners), turn heads, scalpers, cleaners, trippers, and the
headhouse and other such structures.
    (h) Grain loading station means that portion of a grain elevator
where the grain is transferred from the elevator to a truck, railcar,
barge, or ship. A grain loading station includes all of the equipment,
support structures, and associated dust control equipment and
aspiration systems required to operate or otherwise connected to the
grain loading station.
    (i) Grain storage elevator means any grain elevator located at any
wheat flour mill, wet corn mill, dry corn mill (human consumption),
rice mill, or soybean oil extraction plant which has a permanent grain
storage capacity of 35,200 m\3\ (ca. 1 million bushels).
    (j) Grain terminal elevator means any grain elevator which has a
permanent storage capacity of more than 88,100 m\3\ (ca. 2.5 million
U.S. bushels), except those located at animal food manufacturers, pet
food manufacturers, cereal manufacturers, breweries, and livestock
feedlots.
    (k) Grain unloading station means that portion of a grain elevator
where the grain is transferred from a truck, railcar, barge, or ship to
a receiving hopper or to the grain handling equipment that connects the
unloading station to the rest of the grain elevator. A grain unloading
station includes all of the equipment, support structures, and
associated dust control equipment and

aspiration systems required to operate or otherwise connected to the
grain unloading station.
    (l) Permanent storage capacity means the grain storage capacity
calculated as specified in either paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this
section, as applicable.
    (1) Grain throughput and grain storage capacity are known. If all
of the grain storage buildings, bins and silos associated with the
grain elevator existed prior to the date of construction, modification,
or reconstruction of the affected facility, then use Equation 1 of this
subpart to calculate permanent storage capacity.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JY14.008

Where:

Ctp = Total permanent storage capacity of all buildings,
bins (including TSFs) and silos used to store grain (bushels).
Cp = Total storage capacity of all buildings, bins
(excluding TSFs) and silos used to store grain (bushels).
Tp = Maximum annual throughput of grain for all
buildings, bins (excluding TSFs) and silos used to store grain
(bushels per year) over the previous 5 years.
Ct = Total storage capacity of all temporary storage
facilities used to store grain (bushels).

    (2) Grain throughput and grain storage capacity are not known. If
any one of the grain storage buildings, bins or silos associated with
the grain elevator did not exist prior to the date of construction,
modification, or reconstruction of the affected facility, then use
Equation 2 of this subpart to calculate permanent storage capacity.

Ctp = Cp + (0.34 * Ct) (Eq. 2)

Where:

Ctp = Total permanent storage capacity of all buildings,
bins (including TSFs) and silos used to store grain (bushels).
Cp = Total storage capacity of all buildings, bins
(excluding TSFs) and silos used to store grain (bushels).
Ct = Total storage capacity of all temporary storage
facilities used to store grain (bushels).
0.34 = Default ratio of permanent grain storage capacity to annual
throughput.

    (m) Portable equipment include (but are not limited to) portable
augers, portable conveyors and front-end loaders that are not fixed at
any one spot and can be moved around the site.
    (n) Process emission means the particulate matter which is
collected by a capture system.
    (o) Rack dryer means any equipment used to reduce the moisture
content of grain in which the grain flows from the top to the bottom in
a cascading flow around rows of baffles (racks).
    (p) Railcar means railroad hopper car or boxcar.
    (q) Temporary storage facility, or TSF, means any grain storage bin
that:
    (1) Uses an asphalt, concrete, or other comparable base material;
    (2) Uses rigid, self-supporting sidewalls;
    (3) Provides adequate aeration; and
    (4) Provides an acceptable covering (e.g., tarp).
    (r) Unloading leg means a device which includes a bucket-type
elevator which is used to remove grain from a barge or ship.
    (s) Wire screen column dryer means any equipment used to reduce the
moisture content of grain in which the grain flows from the top to the
bottom in one or more continuous packed columns between two woven wire
screens.

Sec.  60.302a  Standard for particulate matter.

    (a) On and after the date of completing the initial performance
test required in Sec.  60.8, no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere any gases which exhibit:
    (1) Greater than 0 percent opacity from any column dryer with
column plate perforation exceeding 2.4 mm diameter (ca. 0.094 inch).
    (2) Greater than 0 percent opacity from any rack dryer in which
exhaust gases pass through a screen filter coarser than 50 mesh.
    (3) Greater than 10 percent opacity from any wire screen column
dryer.
    (b) On and after the date of completing the initial performance
test required in Sec.  60.8, no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any affected facility except a grain dryer, or grain
handling, loading, or unloading affected facilities at a TSF using
portable equipment, any process emission which:
    (1) Contains particulate matter in excess of 0.023 g/dscm (ca. 0.01
gr/dscf).
    (2) Exhibits greater than 0 percent opacity.
    (c) On and after the date of completing the initial performance
test required in Sec.  60.8, no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere any fugitive emission from:
    (1) Any individual truck unloading station, railcar unloading
station, or railcar loading station, which exhibits greater than 5
percent opacity.
    (2) Any grain handling operation which exhibits greater than 0
percent opacity.
    (3) Any truck loading station which exhibits greater than 10
percent opacity.
    (4) Any barge or ship loading station which exhibits greater than
20 percent opacity.
    (d) The owner or operator of any barge or ship unloading station
must meet the requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1), (2), or (3)
of this section.
    (1) Barge or ship unloading operations using an unloading leg must
operate as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The unloading leg must be enclosed from the top (including the
receiving hopper) to the center line of the bottom pulley and
ventilation to a control device must be maintained on both sides of the
leg and the grain receiving hopper. Where aspiration of the casing
provides dust control at the boot of the conveyor and a receiving
hopper is not used, the unloading leg must be enclosed from the top to
the center line of the bottom pulley and ventilation to a control
device must be maintained on both sides of the leg.
    (ii) The total rate of air ventilated must be at least 32.1 actual
cubic meters per cubic meter of grain handling capacity (ca. 40 ft3/
bu).
    (2) On and after the date of completing the initial performance
test required in Sec.  60.8, visible emissions from a barge or ship
unloading station using an en-masse drag conveyor must not exceed 10
percent opacity.
    (3) For barge or ship unloading stations not using an unloading leg
or an en-masse drag conveyor, the owner or operator must use other
methods of emission control demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction to reduce emissions of particulate matter to the same
level or less.
    (e) These standards apply at all times.

Sec.  60.303a  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec.  60.8, the
owner or operator must use as reference methods and procedures the test
methods in appendix A of this part or other methods and procedures as
specified in this section, except as provided in Sec.  60.8(b).
Acceptable alternative methods and procedures are given in paragraph
(c) of this section.
    (b) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the
particulate matter and opacity standards in Sec.  60.302a as follows:
    (1) Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 must be used to
determine the particulate matter concentration and the volumetric flow
rate of the effluent gas. The sampling time and sample volume for each
run must be at least 60 minutes and 1.70 dscm (60 dscf). The probe and
filter holder must be operated without heaters.
    (2) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be used to

determine the ventilation volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 and the procedures in
Sec.  60.11 must be used to determine opacity.
    (c) The owner or operator may use the following as alternatives to
the reference methods and procedures specified in this section:
    (1) For Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, Method 17 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-6 may be used.
    (d) Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 testing for opacity
must be performed annually. The first performance test must be
conducted no later than 12 months after the initial performance test
required in Sec.  60.8 of this part. Subsequent performance tests must
be conducted at intervals no longer than 12 months following the
previous periodic performance test.
    (2) Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 testing for
particulate matter concentration must be conducted no later than 60
months after the initial performance test required in Sec.  60.8 of
this part. Subsequent performance tests must be conducted at intervals
no longer than 60 months following the previous periodic performance
test. The periodic performance test results must be submitted according
to Sec.  60.306a. The performance test must be conducted while
processing grains that will result in the highest PM emissions.

Sec.  60.304a  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) You must conduct weekly visual emissions checks for each
affected facility and take corrective action for positive visual
emissions checks.
    (b) You must conduct inspections of fabric filters and baghouses at
each affected facility no later than 6 months after the initial
performance test required in Sec.  60.8 of this part. Subsequent
inspections must be conducted at intervals no longer than 6 months
following the previous inspection.

Sec.  60.305a  Recordkeeping requirements.

    You must maintain the records specified in subpart A of this part
and the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this
section.
    (a) Total storage capacity and annual throughput of grain (bushels)
for each building, bin (excluding TSFs), and silo used to store grain.
    (b) Total storage capacity for each TSF.
    (c) The date, time and duration of each event that causes an
affected source to fail to meet an applicable standard; the record must
list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
    (d) Results of 6 month baghouse and fabric filter inspections,
including any corrective action taken.
    (e) Weekly visual emissions checks and any corrective action taken
as a result of positive visual emissions checks.
    (f) Results of 12 month opacity tests.

Sec.  60.306a  Reporting Requirements.

    (a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (defined in Sec.  60.8) as required by this subpart and Sec.
60.8, you must submit the results of the performance tests, and include
the type of grain processed at the affected facility for which the
performance test is being conducted, required by this subpart to the
EPA by the following steps. You must use the EPA's Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) to
document performance test data. You must submit the file package
generated by ERT through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed by logging in to the
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Only data
collected using test methods supported by the ERT as listed on the ERT
Web site are subject to the requirement to submit the performance test
data electronically. Owners or operators who claim that some of the
information being submitted for performance tests is confidential
business information (CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including
information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page
Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. At
the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also submit these
reports, including the confidential business information, to the
delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated authority.
For any performance test conducted using test methods that are not
listed on the ERT Web site, the owner or operator shall submit the
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in Sec.  60.4.
    (b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each Method 9
opacity test required in this subpart and Sec.  60.11, you must submit
the results of the opacity tests to the Administrator at the
appropriate address as shown in 40 CFR 60.4.
    (c) The date, time and duration of each event that causes an
affected facility to fail to meet a standard; the record must list the
affected facility or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.

Sec.  60.307a  Modifications.

    (a) The factor 6.5 must be used in place of ``annual asset
guidelines repair allowance percentage,'' to determine whether a
capital expenditure as defined by Sec.  60.2 has been made to an
existing facility.
    (b) The following physical changes or changes in the method of
operation are not by themselves considered to be a modification of any
existing facility:
    (1) The addition of gravity loadout spouts to existing grain
storage or grain transfer bins.
    (2) The installation of automatic grain weighing scales.
    (3) Replacement of motor and drive units driving existing grain
handling equipment.
    (4) The installation of permanent storage capacity with no increase
in hourly grain handling capacity.
[FR Doc. 2014-15868 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95979-95980]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1325-007; ER10-1330-005; ER10-1333-007; ER10-
2032-006; ER10-2033-006; ER12-1946-007; ER12-2313-003; ER15-190-004;
ER15-255-002; ER16-141-003; ER16-355-001; ER17-543-001.
    Applicants: CinCap V LLC, Colonial Eagle Solar, LLC, Conetoe II
Solar, LLC, Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC, Duke Energy Beckjord Storage,
LLC, Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky,
Inc., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Renewable Services, LLC, Duke
Energy SAM, LLC, Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC, North Allegheny Wind,
LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for the Northeast
Region of Duke Energy Corporation subsidiaries.
    Filed Date: 12/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161221-5457.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2552-003; ER11-2554-003; ER11-2555-002; ER11-
2556-003; ER11-2557-003; ER11-2558-003.
    Applicants: Massachusetts Electric Company, Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation, New England Power Company, National Grid-Glenwood Energy
Center, LLC, National Grid-Port Jefferson Energy Center, LLC, The
Narragansett Electric Company.
    Description: Updated Triennial Market Power Analysis of National
Grid USA.
    Filed Date: 12/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20161220-5386.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-644-002.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 676-H Compliance Filing
Effective Tariff Version Correction to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5008.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2602-002.
    Applicants: 4C Acquisition, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Application for
Market-Based Rate Authorization of 4C Acquisition to be effective 1/9/
2017.
    Filed Date: 12/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161221-5414.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-604-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 591 5th Rev--NITSA with
Benefis Health System to be effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161221-5403.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-605-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 605 6th Rev--NITSA with
Bonneville Power Administration to be effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161221-5405.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-606-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 642 4th Rev--NITSA with
General Mills Operations LLC to be effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161221-5406.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-607-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 666 4th Rev--NITSA with
Suiza Dairy to be effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20161221-5408.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-608-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 760 2nd Rev--NITSA with
Beartooth Electric Cooperative to be effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-609-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 767 3rd Rev--NITSA with
Basin Electric Power Cooperative to be effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-610-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 243 11th Rev--NITSA with
CHS Inc. to be effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-611-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to SMUD Fringe
Area Service Agreement (RS 244) to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-612-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to City and County
of San Francisco Hunters Point WDT SA (SA 36) to be effective 12/22/
2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-613-000.
    Applicants: New York State Reliability Council, L.L.C., Whiteman
Osterman & Hanna LLP.
    Description: Informational Filing of the Revised Installed Capacity
Requirement for the New York Control

Area by the New York State Reliability Council, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 12/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20161220-5390.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-614-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SPS GSEC-Cntrl Ld Intrpt
Equip Agrmt 691 0.0.0 to be effective 4/16/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-616-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation--SA 777,
Agreement with Western Energy Company to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-617-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-12-22_SA 2892 Consumers
Energy-Wolverine Power Supply 2nd Rev. WDS to be effective 3/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-618-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position #AB2-004,
Original Service Agreement No. 4584 to be effective 11/30/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-619-000.
    Applicants: GenConn Energy LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-620-000.
    Applicants: Boston Energy Trading and Marketing LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-621-000.
    Applicants: Energy Plus Holdings LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-622-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Energy Management, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-623-000.
    Applicants: Rubicon NYP Corp.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Initial MBR to be effective
1/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-624-000.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Energy Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-625-000.
    Applicants: Independence Energy Group LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-626-000.
    Applicants: Long Beach Peakers LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-627-000.
    Applicants: Mountain Wind Power, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-628-000.
    Applicants: Mountain Wind Power II LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-629-000.
    Applicants: North Community Turbines LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20161222-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/17.

    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: December 22, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31533 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 61334-61335]
[DOCID:fr30oc07-34]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8488-7]

Proposed Consent Decree Modification, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Modification to Consent Decree; Request for
Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed modification to a consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed
by Environmental Defense: Environmental Defense v. Environmental
Protection Agency, No. C 05 2090 (N.D.Cal.). On June 6, 2005, plaintiff
Environmental Defense filed a complaint claiming that EPA had failed to
perform a nondiscretionary duty to either grant or deny, within
eighteen months of receipt, an August 11, 2003 petition submitted to
EPA by Environmental Defense asking the Administrator to list diesel
engine exhaust as a hazardous air pollutant under section 112(b)(3) of
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(3). Under the terms of the initial
consent decree, EPA agreed to sign a notice for publication in the
Federal Register that contained either a proposal to grant (in whole or
in part) or a final determination that denies the petition by June 12,
2006. If EPA proposed to grant the petition, then EPA agreed to sign a
final notice for publication in the Federal Register either granting or
denying (in whole or in part) the petition by May 1, 2007. The original
deadlines have been extended to January 7, 2008 and April 2, 2008,
respectively, as a result of previous modifications to the original
consent decree. Under the terms of the proposed modification, the
deadlines above would be changed, respectively, to August 11, 2010 and
May 11, 2011. However, EPA will not have to act on Environmental
Defense's petition if EPA signs a notice for publication in the Federal
Register of a proposed rule proposing to establish emissions standards
for the emission of hazardous air pollutants from existing non-
emergency stationary diesel engines of 300 horsepower or greater
manufactured prior to 1996 pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412 by February 25, 2009, and signs a notice for
publication in the Federal Register of a final rule establishing
emission standards for such engines by February 10, 2010.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree modification
must be received by November 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2007-1070, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Horowitz, Air and Radiation
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The consent decree modification would establish new deadlines by
which date EPA must either grant or deny Environmental Defense's
petition to list diesel exhaust as a hazardous air pollutant under
section 112 of the CAA. Under the proposed modification, no later than
August 11, 2010, EPA shall sign a notice for publication in the Federal
Register either a proposal to grant or a final determination to deny
the petition with a written explanation of the reasons for EPA's
decision. If EPA proposes to grant the petition, then no later than May
11, 2011, EPA shall sign a final notice for publication in the Federal
Register either granting or denying the petition. However, EPA will not
have to act on Environmental Defense's petition if EPA signs a notice
for publication in the Federal Register of a proposed rule proposing to
establish emissions standards for the emission of hazardous air
pollutants from existing non-emergency stationary diesel engines of 300
horsepower or greater manufactured prior to 1996 pursuant to section
112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412 by February 25, 2009, and
signs a notice for publication in the Federal Register of a final rule
establishing emission standards for such engines by February 10, 2010.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed modification to the consent decree from persons who were
not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA
or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the
proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate,
improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.
Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any
comment which may be submitted, that consent to the consent decree
modification should be withdrawn, the terms of the modification will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How Can I Get A Copy of the Consent Decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-1070) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of

Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov You may use the http://www.regulations.gov.
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,

unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments

to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail address is automatically captured and

included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: October 24, 2007.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E7-21321 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67359-67360]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-311-000]

MP2 Energy IL LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
MP2 Energy IL LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 26, 2012.
    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 Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 5, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27391 Filed 11-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 212 (Monday, November 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65268-65270]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26004]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73443; File No. SR-DTC-2014-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the
Modifications To Require Receiver Authorized Delivery Approval for DTC
Processing of Institutional Delivery Transactions

October 28, 2014.
    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 October 16, 2014, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Item I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared by DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of changes to the DTC Settlement
Service Guide (the ``Guide'') \3\ to require Participants to use the
Receiver Authorized Delivery (``RAD'') function to accept (i.e.,
``match'') any affirmed institutional delivery transaction (``ID
Transaction'') prior to DTC processing of the related securities
delivery.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Guide is available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/
Downloads/legal/service-guides/Settlement.ashx.
    \4\ Terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning set
forth in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC 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
    DTC proposes to modify the Guide to require Participants to use RAD
to accept any affirmed ID Transaction prior to DTC processing of the
respective delivery of securities.
    RAD allows a receiver of valued deliveries of securities
(``Receiver'') to manage which deliveries to accept, or to reject,
prior to further processing by DTC. Prior to the proposed rule change,
pursuant to a recent rule change (the ``Prior RAD Change'') \5\ DTC has
instituted the requirement that all Deliver Orders and Payment Orders
be approved through RAD for further processing at DTC. The purpose of
the Prior RAD Change and this proposed rule change is to establish a
consistent internal ``matching'' system for book-entry deliveries at
DTC, by which the agreement of the Participant delivering securities
(``Deliverer'') and Receiver is

confirmed with respect to each delivery for purposes of DTC settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72576 (Jul. 9, 2014); 79
FR 41335 (Jul. 15, 2014) (SR-DTC-2014-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ID Transactions generally have not required RAD approval, because
these transactions are externally pre-matched through Omgeo, LLC: the
Guide has permitted Participants, at their option, to apply RAD.\6\
Instead of RAD, a Participant may use the same-day reclaim process to
return securities to the original Deliverer without the acceptance of
the latter. This process creates uncertainty for Participants and DTC
with respect to ID Transactions as to whether securities would be
delivered or reclaimed on the same day without the prior acceptance of
the Receiver or original Deliverer, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Receivers may optionally set their DTC profile to route ID
Transactions to RAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would amend the Guide to
eliminate this uncertainty by providing that ID Transactions would only
be processed for delivery once the intended Receiver has approved the
transaction in RAD.\7\ Same day reclaims would also be subject to RAD
approval by the original Deliverer. As with any securities delivery,
these transactions would be subject to risk management controls.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For processing efficiency, the proposed change to the Guide
would offer Participants the option to set their system profile to
allow affirmed ID Transactions to be automatically accepted in RAD.
However, Participants would no longer have an option to allow ID
Transactions to bypass RAD.
    \8\ DTC risk management controls, including Collateral Monitor
and Net Debit Cap (as defined in DTC Rule 1), are designed so that
DTC may complete system-wide settlement notwithstanding the failure
to settle of its largest Participant or affiliated family of
Participants. The Collateral Monitor tests that a Receiver has
adequate collateral to secure the amount of its net debit balance
and the Net Debit Cap limits the net debit balance of a Participant
so that it cannot exceed DTC liquidity resources for settlement. See
DTC Rules, http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
dtc_rules.ashx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Guide would be updated for technical changes to:
(i) Update the text for consistency to reflect that all valued Deliver
Orders, Payment Orders, ID Transactions, MMI transactions, reclaims,
pledges and releases of pledged securities would be subject to RAD;
(ii) update the text for consistency to reflect that all reclaims would
be subject to risk management controls and remove references to system
functions related to reclaims that have become obsolete; (iii) add an
email address to which Settling Banks seeking to adjust Net Debit Caps
may send their requests, in addition to via mail or overnight delivery
to the existing mailing address; (iv) indicate where Participants may
access certain system functions via Settlement Web either in addition
to, or in lieu of, PBS/PTS; (v) eliminate references to fees, relating
to the ID Net service, which are redundant since those fees are also
listed in DTC's fee schedule; and (vi) delete reference to the
population of a ``third party'' field on DTC's system screens for the
ID Net service which is no longer applicable.
    Implementation. The effective date of the proposed rule change
would be announced via a DTC Important Notice.
(2) Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change would reduce uncertainty relating to
settlement of securities deliveries for ID transactions through DTC by
requiring acceptance by the receiving party prior to delivery.
Therefore, the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions
of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \9\ of the Act which requires that the rules of
the clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. In
addition, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(12) of the Act \10\ which requires that a clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that final settlement occurs
no later than the end of the settlement day and requires that intraday
or real-time finality be provided where necessary to reduce risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received with respect to this filing.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-DTC-2014-10 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 No. SR-DTC-2014-10. 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 DTC and on DTC's
Web site at http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx. 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-DTC-2014-10 and should be
submitted on or before November 24, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26004 Filed 10-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P