[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6909-6912]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82678; File No. SR-ICEEU-2018-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Limited
CDS Procedures, CDS Risk Policy, and CDS Risk Model Description

February 9, 2018.
    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 February 6, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    ICE Clear Europe Limited proposes to modify certain provisions of
its CDS Procedures to support clearing of a new single-name CDS
transaction type and to modify its CDS Risk Policy and CDS Risk Model
Description to enhance risk management relating to CDS involving
European banks.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe proposes to modify certain provisions of its CDS
Procedures to support clearing of a new single-name CDS transaction
type. ICE Clear Europe also proposes to amend its CDS Risk Policy and
CDS Risk Model Description to better address certain risks associated
with CDS referencing European banks relating to the issuance of new
debt structures by those banks. These revisions do not involve any
changes to the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules.
Proposed Amendments to the CDS Procedures
    The purpose of the proposed changes to the CDS Procedures is to
support clearing of a new single-name CDS transaction type: Standard
European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate. ICE Clear Europe
understands that market participants generally propose to commence
trading of this transaction type as of March 20, 2018, and relevant
standard documentation for the transaction type has recently been
published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
(``ISDA''). Transactions under such standard documentation, will be
generally similar to Standard European Financial Corporate transactions
currently cleared by the Clearing House, but will have a reference
obligation that will be subordinated to other senior obligations, but
will rank senior to so-called ``tier 2'' obligations that are
subordinated for purposes of European Union bank regulatory capital
requirements. ICE Clear Europe proposes amending its CDS Procedures to
provide for the clearance of contracts referencing this new transaction
type. ICE Clear Europe believes the addition of these contracts will
benefit the market for credit default swaps by providing market
participants the benefits of clearing, including reduction in
counterparty risk and safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to
Clearing House Rules.
    Specifically, ICE Clear Europe proposes amending Paragraph
4.3(c)(ii) of the CDS Procedures to reference Standard European Senior
Non-Preferred Financial Corporate as a transaction type eligible to be
submitted for clearing. Similarly, Paragraph 11.3(i) is amended in the
definition of `Non-STEC Single Name Contract' to include Standard
European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate in the list of types
of Reference Entities eligible to be cleared by ICE Clear Europe. ICE

Clear Europe also proposes amending the definition of `Single Name
Contract Reference Obligations' in Paragraph 11.3(j) to remove a
requirement that the relevant obligation must be a ``senior level''
obligation, and add instead that the obligation be of the applicable
seniority level for the terms of the contract (to accommodate the
seniority level of Senior Non-Preferred transactions, as discussed
above).
Proposed Amendments to the CDS Risk Model Description
    ICE Clear Europe's risk management methodology incorporates
considerations of idiosyncratic credit events and the associated
potential losses. These credit event losses are termed Loss-Given-
Default (``LGD''). In order to support clearing of the new transaction
type, ICE Clear Europe proposes certain LGD enhancements to its risk
model. A description of these changes is set forth below.
    ICE Clear Europe first proposes Risk Factor (``RF'') level LGD
enhancements. These proposed RF level enhancements are designed to
better capture the LGD risk associated with the issuance of new debt
structures by European banks, and provide a consistent recovery rate
scenario approach to different sub-factors.
    Under ICE Clear Europe's risk model, every Single Name (``SN'')
reference entity is deemed an RF. Each combination of definition, doc-
clause, tier and currency for a given SN RF determines a SN Risk Sub-
Factor (``RSF''). Currently, ICE Clear Europe measures losses
associated with credit events (``LGD'') by means of a stress-based
approach, which utilizes three recovery rate (``RR'') scenarios:
minimum RR, expected RR, and maximum RR. Outright and index-derived RSF
exposures are combined at each RR scenario.
    The results of these RR scenarios are used as an input into the
Profit/Loss-Given Default (``P/LGD'') calculations at both the RSF and
RF levels. For each RSF, P/LGD is calculated as the worst credit event
outcome, and for each RF, P/LGD is calculated as the sum of the worst
credit outcomes per RSF. These final P/LGD results are used as part of
the determination of risk requirements.
    ICE Clear Europe proposes enhancements to the RF level LGD
calculation. Specifically, ICE Clear Europe proposes a change to the
calculation by incorporating a more consistent approach in the
calculation of the P/LGD by using the same RR scenarios applied to the
different RSFs which form part of the considered RF.
    For each RF, ICE Clear Europe will continue to calculate an
``extreme outcome'' as the sum of the worst RSF P/LGDs across all
scenarios. ICE Clear Europe will also, for each RF, calculate an
``expected outcome'' as the worst sum of all the RSF P/LGDs across all
of the same scenarios. Under the proposed approach, ICE Clear Europe
will then combine the results of the ``extreme outcome'' calculation
and the ``expected outcome'' calculation to compute the total LGD for
each RF.
    ICE Clear Europe also proposes to expand its LGD analysis to Risk
Factor Groups (``RFG''). Under the proposed changes, a collection of
related RFs will form a RFG. These related RFs will be defined as a RFG
based on either (1) having a common majority parental sovereign
ownership (e.g. quasi-sovereigns and sovereigns), or (2) being a
majority owned subsidiary of a common parent entity according to the
Bloomberg Related Securities Analysis. A RFG can consist of only one
RF. This change will better capture the risk exposure dynamics of
related RFs, and will allow ICE Clear Europe the ability to provide
limited LGD benefits across RFs with opposite exposures, as well as
allow for the ability to capture accumulation of directional exposure
for related RFs.
    Under the proposed approach, the total quantity LGD will be
calculated on a RFG level, and account for the exposure due to credit
events associated with the reference entities within a given RFG. If a
RFG contains only one RF, the LGD will continue to be computed as the
risk exposure due to a credit event for a given underlying reference
entity. Under the proposed approach, ICE Clear Europe will sum the P/
LGDs for each RF in a given RFG, with limited offsets in the event RFs
exhibit positive PLGD. Using the results of the above calculation, ICE
Clear Europe will obtain the RFG level LGD. The proposed approach also
includes a calculation which allows for the RFG level LGD to be
attributed to each RF within the considered RFG.
    ICE Clear Europe proposes changes to the `Loss Given Default Risk
Analysis' section of the CDS Risk Model Description Document to reflect
the described RF and RFG LGD calculation changes. ICE Clear Europe also
proposes conforming changes to other sections of the CDS Risk Model
Description to incorporate these methodology changes and reflect the
RFG analysis.
    ICE Clear Europe proposes a revision to the `Uncollateralized Loss
Given Default' calculation in order to incorporate the RFG level LGD
attribution calculation mentioned above.
    ICE Clear Europe proposes changes to the `Idiosyncratic Jump-to-
Default Requirements' section of the CDS Risk Model Description
document. Currently, the portfolio Jump to Default (``JTD'') approach
collateralizes the worst uncollateralized LGD (``ULGD'') exposure among
all RFs. Under the proposed approach, the portfolio JTD approach will
collateralize, through the portfolio JTD IM requirement that accounts
for the RFG-specific LGD collateralization, the worst ULGD exposure
among all RFGs. The ULGD exposure for a given RFG will be calculated as
a sum of the associated RF ULGDs.
    ICE Clear Europe also proposes minor edits to the `SWWR' (Specific
Wrong Way Risk) and `GWWR' (General Wrong Way Risk) sections to update
language and calculation descriptions to accommodate the introduction
of the RFG to the `Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default Requirements' section.
    ICE Clear Europe proposes changes to the `Guaranty Fund
Methodology' section. ICE Clear Europe's risk management approach
establishes GF to provide for the mutualization of losses under extreme
credit market scenarios. Specifically, the ICE Clear Europe GF is
designed to provide adequate funds to cover losses associated with the
default of the two Clearing Member (``CM'') affiliate groups that would
potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure to ICE Clear
Europe under extreme, but plausible market conditions. ICE Clear
Europe's current GF methodology includes, among other assumptions and
adverse market conditions, the assumption that up to three credit
events, different from the ones associated with CMs, occur during the
established risk horizon. ICE Clear Europe proposes expanding this
analysis to the RFG level. Under this proposed approach, it will be
assumed that credit events associated with up to three RFGs, different
from the ones associated with the CMs and the RFs that are in the RFGs
as the CMs, occur during the established risk horizon. As such, the
uncollateralized losses, used in the Guaranty Fund analysis, reflect
the proposed expansion to the RFG level.
    ICE Clear Europe also proposes clarifications to the calculation
for the Specific Wrong Way Risk component of the Guaranty Fund.
Currently, for a given CM, the Specific Wrong Way Risk component is
based on self-referencing positions arising from one or more RFs; ICE
Clear Europe proposes clarifying

this analysis to be based on the RFG level.
    The amendments to the CDS Risk Model Description also contain
typographical corrections and similar technical corrections and
clarifications.
Proposed Amendments to the CDS Risk Policy
    ICE Clear Europe also proposes conforming changes to the CDS Risk
Policy consistent with those described above.
    Specifically, the definition of a Risk Sub-Factor is proposed to be
amended that it will be defined as a specific combination of SN, tier
and currency (as well as documentation clause), where the union of all
Risk Sub-Factors that share the same underlying SN forms a SN Risk
Factor.
    The CDS Risk Policy is also being amended such that instead of the
worst SN, the worst LGD associated with a Risk Factor Group (``RFG''),
will be selected to establish the portfolio JTD requirement. The
amendments also clarify that a Risk Factor Group is a set of Risk
Factors related by a common parental ownership.
    With respect to the guaranty fund calculation, provisions in
respect of two uncollateralized LGD relating to the guaranty fund
calculation is being amended such that instead of the GF LGD being
estimated for every SN based on the total portfolio positions in the
SNs, the GF LGD will be estimated for every RFG based on the total
portfolio positions in the SNs belonging to the same RFG.
    The amendments to the CDS Risk Policy also contain typographical
corrections and similar technical corrections and clarifications.
(b) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICE Clear Europe, in
particular, to Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F),\4\ because ICE Clear Europe
believes that the proposed rule changes will promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regards to the proposed amendments to the Procedures, contracts
referencing the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial
Corporate transaction type are similar to the Non-STEC Single Name
contracts currently cleared by ICE Clear Europe, and will be cleared
pursuant to ICE Clear Europe's existing clearing arrangements and
related financial safeguards, protections and risk management
procedures (with the modifications to the CDS Risk Policy and CDS Risk
Model Description discussed herein). Clearing of these contracts will
allow market participants an increased ability to manage risk and will
ensure the safeguarding of related margin assets pursuant to Clearing
House Rules. ICE Clear Europe believes that acceptance of these
contracts, on the terms and conditions set out in the Rules, is
consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance of and settlement of
securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions cleared by ICE Clear Europe, the safeguarding of
securities and funds in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe, and
the protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning
of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing of contracts referencing the Standard European Senior Non-
Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type will also satisfy the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\6\ In particular, in terms of financial
resources, ICE Clear Europe will apply its existing initial margin
methodology to the contracts (with the modifications to the CDS Risk
Policy and CDS Risk Model Description discussed herein). ICE Clear
Europe believes that this model (as proposed to be amended) will
provide sufficient initial margin requirements to cover its credit
exposure to its Clearing Members from clearing such contracts,
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) and (e)(6).\7\
In addition, ICE Clear Europe believes its Guaranty Fund, under its
methodology as proposed to be revised, will, together with the required
initial margin, provide sufficient financial resources to support the
clearing of the contracts consistent with the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(b)(3) and (e)(4).\8\ ICE Clear Europe also believes that its
existing operational and managerial resources will be sufficient for
clearing of the contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(e)(17),\9\ as the new contracts are substantially the same from
an operational perspective as existing contracts. Similarly, ICE Clear
Europe will use its existing settlement procedures and account
structures for the new contracts, consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(8), (9) and (10) \10\, as to the finality and accuracy
of its daily settlement process and addressing the risks associated
with physical deliveries. ICE Clear Europe determined to accept the
contracts for clearing in accordance with its governance process,
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2).\11\ Finally,
ICE Clear Europe will apply its existing default management policies
and procedures for the contracts. ICE Clear Europe believes that these
procedures allow for it to take timely action to contain losses and
liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its obligations in the
event of Clearing Member insolvencies or defaults in respect of the
additional single names, in accordance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2) and (e)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3) and (e)(4).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(8), (9) and (10).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regards to the LGD enhancements, the proposed risk model
revisions enhance ICE Clear Europe's risk methodology and are expected
to impose more conservative requirements, which would enhance the
financial resources available to ICE Clear Europe and thereby
facilitate its ability to promptly and accurately clear and settle its
cleared CDS contracts. In addition, the proposed revisions are
consistent with the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\13\ In
particular, the LGD related amendments will enhance the financial
resources available to the Clearing House, and continue to ensure that
ICE Clear Europe maintains sufficient financial resources to withstand
a default by the two Clearing Member families to which it has the
largest aggregate exposure in extreme, but plausible market conditions,
and are therefore reasonably designed to meet the margin and financial
resource requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2-3) and (e)(4) and
(e)(6).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFRSec.  240.17Ad-22.
    \14\ 17 CFRSec.  240.17Ad-22(b)(2-3) and (e)(4) and (e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any

impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Contracts
referencing the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial
Corporate transaction type will be available to all ICE Clear Europe
participants for clearing. The clearing of these contracts by ICE Clear
Europe does not preclude the offering of the contracts for clearing by
other market participants. Additionally, the LGD enhancements apply
uniformly across all Clearing Members. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does
not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition
that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change

    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 the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, security-based swap submission or advance notice is consistent
with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-002. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change, security-based
swap submission or advance notice that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission or advance notice between the Commission
and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public
in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available
for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings
will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rule-filing.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-002 and should be
submitted on or before March 8, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03112 Filed 2-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33477-33478]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC22-67-000.
    Applicants: Eurus Combine Hills I LLC, Eurus Combine Hills II LLC,
Avenal Park LLC, Sand Drag LLC, Sun City Project LLC, Spearville 3,
LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Eurus Combine Hills I LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL22-58-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Petition for Declaratory Order of Wabash Valley Power
Association, Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220518-5185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: EL22-59-000.
    Applicants: Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC v. Southwest Power Pool,
Inc., et al.
    Description: Complaint of Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1298-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2022-05-26_MISO TOs Order 864
Additional Compliance to be effective 1/27/2020.

    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2524-004.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to ER21-2524-003 RE
Compliance to Waiver NAESB Business Practice to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1197-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Letter--SCE
Second Amended LGIA Catalina Solar TOT455 to be effective 3/5/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1439-001.
    Applicants: EdSan 1B Group 1 Edwards, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Petition for Market-
Based Rate Authorization to be effective 5/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1440-001.
    Applicants: EdSan 1B Group 1 Sanborn, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Petition for Market-
Based Rate Authorization to be effective 5/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1441-001.
    Applicants: EdSan 1B Group 2, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Petition for Market-
Based Rate Authorization to be effective 5/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1662-001.
    Applicants: GB II New York LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Supplement to Notice of Succession
to be effective 4/20/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1956-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amend 4.6 of Rate Schedule
69 to be effective 7/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1957-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3954 Huckleberry Solar GIA
to be effective 5/5/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1958-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3125R11 Basin Electric Power
Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1959-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6464; Queue No. AE2-319 to be effective 5/2/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1960-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 388,
Amendment No. 2 to E&P to be effective 7/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1961-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 401,
Yucca Surplus Agreement to be effective 5/12/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1962-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: DEC-NCEMC RS 564 Cancellation to be
effective 7/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1963-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: DEC-New River RS 543 Cancellation to
be effective 7/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1964-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-05-26_SA 3373 Entergy
Arkansas-Newport Solar 1st Rev GIA (J919 J1402) to be effective 5/17/
2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1965-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Rate Schedule
FERC No. 14 to be effective 7/25/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/26/22.
    Accession Number: 20220526-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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: May 26, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11829 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28471-28472]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, and 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167]
RIN 2126-AB20

Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA extends the public comment period for the Agency's March
28, 2014, supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) concerning
the Electronic Logging Devices (ELD) and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents rulemaking.

DATES: FMCSA is extending the comment period for the supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking published on March 28, 2014 (79 FR
17656). You must submit comments by June 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number FMCSA-
2010-0167 or RIN 2126-AB20, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of

Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at 202-
366-5370.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments, data, and related materials. All comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal and/or copyrighted information you provide.

A. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2010-0167'' and
click the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, and to submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2010-0167'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
USDOT Privacy Act system of records notice for the DOT Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) in the Federal Register published on December
29, 2010 (75 FR 82132) at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf.

II. Background

    On March 28, 2014, FMCSA published an SNPRM (79 FR 17656). This
SNPRM included a proposal that would improve commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) safety and reduce the overall paperwork burden for both motor
carriers and drivers by increasing the use of ELDs within the motor
carrier industry, which would in turn improve compliance with the
applicable Hours of Service (HOS) rules. Specifically, this rule
proposed to: (1) Require new technical specifications for ELDs that
address statutory requirements; (2) mandate ELDs for drivers currently
using record of duty status; (3) clarify supporting document
requirements so that motor carriers and drivers can comply efficiently
with HOS regulations, and so that motor carriers can make the best use
of ELDs and related support systems as their primary means of recording
HOS information and ensure HOS compliance; and (4) adopt procedural and
technical provisions aimed at ensuring that ELDs are not used to harass
vehicle operators.
    On May 7, 2014 the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
requested the Agency for an extension of the comment period for the
SNPRM. A copy of the request is included in the docket as comment
FMCSA-2010-0167-0858 (available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2010-0167-0858). CVSA believes that due to the
complexity and significance of the rulemaking, including the new
technical standards, the public comment period should be extended by 30
days.
    The FMCSA acknowledges CVSA's concerns. After reviewing the
request, FMCSA has decided to grant a 30-day extension, to June 26, to
provide all interested parties additional time to submit comments on
this rulemaking.

    Issued on: May 12, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-11244 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29270-29271]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11967]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0851, FRL-9673-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Montana; State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze Federal
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; corrections.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting a proposed rule that appeared in the Federal
Register on April 20, 2012. The proposed rule includes the proposed
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address regional haze in the State
of Montana and the proposed approval of revisions to the Montana SIP
submitted by the State of Montana through the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality on February 17, 2012. We are correcting some
typographical errors and clarifying some information with this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Hinkle, EPA, Region 8, (303)
312-6561.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'' or
``our'' is used it means the EPA.
    On April 20, 2012, EPA published the proposed rule titled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Montana;
State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze Federal Implementation
Plan'' (77 FR 23988). See docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0851. The
following corrections are made to the proposed rule:
    1. On page 23992, Footnote 7 is amended to read as follows:
``Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-005, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf,
(hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance'');
and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,
(September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-004, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as
our ``2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').''
    2. On page 24002, Footnote 27 is amended to read as follows: ``
``Modeling Protocol: Montana Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) Support'', University of North Carolina, Contract EP-D-07-102,
November 21, 2011.''
    3. On page 24004, Footnote 40 is amended to read as follows: ``Ash
Grove Update March 2012 (Ash Grove's letter indicates a mean of 14.4
lbs./ton clinker and a 99th percentile of 18.6 lb NOX/ton
clinker. This is significantly greater than the 2006 emissions shown in
Table 10 for the Midlothian kilns.).''
    4. On pages 24013 and 24014, Footnote 75 is amended to read as
follows: ``BART analysis by Holcim for Trident Cement Plant, Three
Forks, MT (``Holcim Initial Response'') (July 6, 2007); Responses to
EPA comments on BART analysis for Trident Cement Plant (``Holcim 2008
Responses'') (Jan. 25, 2008); BART analysis by Holcim for low
NOX burners for Trident Cement Plant (``Holcim Additional
Response, June 2009'') (June 9, 2009); Response to EPA letter regarding
Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims on BART analysis for
Trident Cement Plant (``Holcim Additional Response, August 2009'')
(Aug. 12, 2009); Response to EPA request for NOX and
SO2 emissions data for 2008-2010 (``Holcim 2011 Response'')
(June 30, 2011); Response to EPA request for emissions and clinker
production for Holcim pursuant to CAA section 114(a) (``Holcim 2012
Response'') (Mar. 2, 2012).''
    5. On page 24014, in the first column, the first sentence of the
second paragraph is amended to read, ``We identified that the following
previously described NOX control technologies are available:
LNB, MKF, FGR, SNCR, and SCR.''
    6. On page 24018, in Table 52, the annual emissions reduction for
fuel switching option 2 is amended to 31.1 tpy, the remaining annual
emissions for fuel switching option 2 is amended to 19.1 tpy, the
annual emissions reduction for fuel switching option 1 is amended to
16.1 tpy, and the remaining annual emissions for fuel switching option
1 is amended to 34.1 tpy.
    7. On page 24020, in Table 60, the emissions reductions from fuel
switching option 1 are amended to 16.1 tpy, the average cost
effectiveness for fuel switching option 1 is amended to 14,938 dollars
per ton, the emissions reduction from fuel switching option 2 is
amended to 31.1 tpy, and the average cost effectiveness for fuel
switching option 2 is amended to 21,211 dollars per ton.
    8. On page 24021, in Table 63, the average cost effectiveness for
fuel switching option 2 is amended to 21,211 dollars per ton, and the
average cost effectiveness for fuel switching option 1 is amended to
14,938 dollars per ton.
    9. On page 24023, Footnote 113 is amended to read as follows:
``Baseline emissions were determined by averaging

the annual emissions from 2008 through 2010 as reported to the CAMD
database available at http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/.''
    10. On page 24024, Footnote 123 is amended to read as follows:
``EPA's CCM Sixth Edition, January 2002, EPA/452/B-02-001, Section 1,
Chapter 2, p. 2-21.''
    11. On page 24025, Footnote 130 is amended to read as follows:
``ICAC February 2008, p. 8.''
    12. On page 24031, Footnote 150 is amended to read as follows:
``Baseline emissions were determined by averaging the annual emissions
from 2008 to 2010 as reported to the CAMD database available at http://
camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/.''
    13. On page 24059, in the first column, the second paragraph is
amended to read, ``We are eliminating the four refineries from further
consideration as a result of consent decrees entered into by the
owners. Under these consent decrees, emissions have been reduced
sufficiently after the 2002 baseline so that the Q/D for each facility
is below 10. Specifically, ExxonMobil's emissions in 2009 of
NOX and SO2 were 1,019 tpy, resulting in a Q/D of
6. Cenex's emissions in 2009 of NOX and SO2 were
727 tpy, resulting in a Q/D of 5. Conoco's emissions in 2009 of
NOX and SO2 were 1,087 tpy, resulting in a Q/D of
8. Montana Refining's emissions in 2009 of NOX and
SO2 were 122 tpy, resulting in a Q/D of 2. The consent
decrees are available in the docket.''
    14. On page 24063, in the first column, the first sentence of the
last paragraph is amended to read, ``We are relying on CELP's estimates
that SCR would take approximately 26 months to install and that SNCR
would take 16 to 24 weeks to install.\239\''
    15. On page 24064, the title for the last column of Table 162 is
amended to read, ``Remaining emissions (tpy).''
    16. On page 24070, in the third column, the fourth sentence of the
second paragraph is amended to read, ``This control option is
functionally equivalent to LSFO in terms of concept and control
efficiency.''
    17. On page 24071, in the first column, the second full sentence of
the first paragraph is amended to read, ``We used 85% control for this
analysis.''
    18. On page 24071, in the first column, the sixth sentence of the
second paragraph is amended to read, ``We used 70% control for this
analysis (about a 10% improvement over existing controls).''
    19. On page 24074, in the third column, the first sentence of the
fifth paragraph is amended to read, ``We identified that the following
technologies to be available: extending the Claus reaction into a lower
temperature liquid phase (the Sulfreen[supreg] process) and tail gas
scrubbing (Wellman-Lord, SCOT, and traditional FGD processes).''
    20. On page 24074, in the third column, the first sentence of the
sixth paragraph is amended to read, ``In the Sulfreen[supreg] process,
the Claus reaction is extended at low temperatures (260 to 300 [deg]F)
to recover SO2 and H2S in the tail gas.''
    21. On page 24075, in the third column, the third paragraph is
amended to read, ``Both the SCOT and Sulfreen[supreg] processes are
feasible; however, in the BART Guidelines, EPA states that it may be
appropriate to eliminate from further consideration technologies that
provide similar control levels at higher cost. See 70 FR 39165 (July 6,
2005). We think it is appropriate to do the same for RP determinations.
In this case, Sulfreen[supreg] systems reportedly can achieve 98% to
99.5% sulfur recovery efficiency while SCOT can reportedly achieve
sulfur recovery as high as 99.8% to 99.9%. The cost is higher for the
Sulfreen[supreg] system when compared to the SCOT process. Because the
SCOT process is more effective and costs less than the Sulfreen[supreg]
system, the Sulfreen[supreg] system was not considered further.''
    22. On page 24076, in the second column, the first sentence of the
third paragraph is amended to read, ``Plum Creek Manufacturing's
Columbia Falls Operation, in Columbia Falls, Montana consists of a
sawmill, a planer, and plywood and medium density fiberboard (MDF)
processes.''
    23. On page 24097, the following information is added to the third
column after the second paragraph, ``K. Congressional Review Act
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not
apply because this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).''
    24. On page 24097, in the third column, under Subpart BB--Montana,
the first line of number three is amended to read, ``3. Add section
52.1395 to read as follows:'' On page 24097, in the third column, under
Subpart BB--Montana, the first line of number three is amended to read,
``3. Add section 52.1395 to read as follows:''
    25. On page 24098, section 52.1396 (c)(1) is amended to read, ``The
owners/operators of EGUs subject to this section shall not emit or
cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or NOX in excess of
the following limitations, in pounds per million British thermal units
(lb/MMBtu), averaged over a rolling 30-day period for SO2
and NOX:''
    26. On page 24098, section 52.1396 (c)(2) is amended to read, ``The
owners/operators of cement kilns subject to this section shall not emit
or cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or NOX in excess
of the following limitations, in pounds per ton of clinker produced,
averaged over a rolling 30-day period for SO2 and
NOX:''
    27. On page 24099, the following is added to section 52.1396 (g),
``(5) All particulate matter stack test results.''
    28. On page 24099, section 52.1396 (h)(4) is amended to read, ``(4)
Owner/operator of each unit shall submit results of any particulate
matter stack tests conducted for demonstrating compliance win the
particulate matter BART limits in section (c) above, within 60 days
after completion of the test.''
    29. On page 24100, section 52.1396 (h)(6) is amended to read, ``(6)
Any other records required by 40 CFR part 60, Subpart F, or 40 CFR part
60, Appendix F, Procedure 1.''
    30. On page 24100, section 52.1396 (i)(5) is added to read, ``(5)
Owner/operator of each unit shall submit semi-annual reports of any
excursions under the approved CAM plan in accordance with the schedule
specified in the source's title V permit.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 8, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-11967 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77690-77694]
[DOCID:fr27de06-33]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0841; FRL-8261-8]

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Extension of the
Reformulated Gasoline Program to the East St. Louis, IL Ozone
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator of EPA shall require the sale of reformulated gasoline
(RFG) in an ozone nonattainment area upon the application of the
Governor of the State in which the nonattainment area is located. This
notice proposes to extend the Act's prohibition against the sale of
conventional (i.e., non-reformulated) gasoline in RFG areas to the
Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area hereafter referred to as the East St. Louis,
Illinois nonattainment area. The Agency proposes to implement this
prohibition on May 1, 2007, for all persons other than retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers (i.e., refiners, importers, and
distributors). For retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, EPA
proposes to implement the prohibition on June 1, 2007. On June 1, 2007,
the East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area would be a covered area for
all purposes in the federal RFG program. EPA seeks comment on
alternative implementation dates it could establish if unexpected
delays in issuing the final rule render the proposed implementation
dates impractical.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
January 26, 2007. To request a public hearing, contact Kurt Gustafson
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If a hearing is requested
no later than January 16, 2007, a hearing will be held at a time and
place to be published in the Federal Register. Persons wishing to
testify at a public hearing must contact Kurt Gustafson at (202) 343-
9219, and submit copies of their testimony to the docket and to Kurt
Gustafson at the addresses below, no later than 10 days prior to the
hearing. After the hearing, the docket for this rulemaking will remain
open for an additional 30 days to receive comments. If a hearing is
held, EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register extending the
comment period for 30 days after the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0841, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0841. Comments may also be e-
mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0841. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you

submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The 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
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
 http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the

flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt Gustafson, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division (Mail Code 6406J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
today's Federal Register, we are setting forth this amendment to the
federal RFG regulations as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no
adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approach in the
preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we
will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive
adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not
take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.
    This document concerns the amendment to EPA's regulations governing
RFG and the prohibition of the sale of conventional gasoline supplied
to the East St. Louis area of Illinois. For further information,
including the regulatory language, please see the information provided
in the direct final rule of the same title which is located in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register.

I. Public Participation and Effective Date

A. Public Comments

    Section 211(k)(6) states that, ``[u]pon the application of the
Governor of a State, the Administrator shall apply the prohibition''
against the sale of conventional gasoline in any area of the State
classified as marginal, moderate, serious, or severe for ozone.
Although section 211(k)(6) provides EPA some discretion to establish
the effective date for this prohibition, and allows EPA to consider
whether there is sufficient domestic capacity to produce RFG in
establishing the effective date, EPA does not have discretion to deny a
Governor's request. Therefore, the scope of this action is limited to
setting an effective date for East St. Louis' opt-in to the RFG
program, and not to decide whether East St. Louis should in fact opt
in. For this reason, EPA is only soliciting comments addressing the
implementation date and whether there is sufficient capacity to produce
RFG, and is not soliciting comments that support or oppose East St.
Louis' participating in the program.
    EPA is proposing implementation dates for this rule of May 1, 2007,
for all persons other than retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers,
and June 1, 2007 for retailers and purchaser-consumers. These dates
coincide with the dates that regulated parties are to switch from
producing or dispensing RFG with a wintertime formulation, to producing
or dispensing VOC-controlled RFG for the summer ozone season. Section
211(k)(6)(A) of the Act stipulates that the effective date of an RFG
opt-in must be no later than one year after the application of the
Governor is received. In this case, therefore, the effective date could
be no later than July 10, 2007. EPA solicits comment on the proposed
implementation dates, and also solicits comment on alternative
implementation dates that could be used in the event that EPA is unable
to issue a final rule quickly enough to use the proposed implementation
dates.
    Persons with comments containing proprietary information must
distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent
and label it as ``Confidential Business Information.'' If a person
making comments wants EPA to base the final rule in part on a
submission labeled as confidential business information, then a non-
confidential version of the document which summarizes the key data or
information should be placed in the public docket. Information covered
by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the
extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received
by EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice
to the person making comments.

B. Public Hearing Procedures

    Any person desiring to present testimony regarding this proposed
rule at the public hearing (see DATES) should notify the contact person
listed above of such intent as soon as possible. A sign-up sheet will
be available at the registration table the morning of the hearing for
scheduling testimony for those who have not notified the contact
person. This testimony will be scheduled on a first come, first served
basis to follow the previously scheduled testimony. EPA suggests that
approximately 50 copies of the statement or material to be presented be
brought to the hearing for distribution to the audience. In addition,
EPA would find it helpful to receive an advance copy of any statement
or material to be presented at the hearing in order to give EPA staff
adequate time to review such material before the hearing. Such advance
copies should be submitted to the contact person listed above.
    The official record of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary
testimony. All such submittals should be directed to the Air Docket,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0841 (see ADDRESSES).

    The Director of EPA's Transportation and Regional Programs
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, or her designee, is
hereby designated Presiding Officer of the hearing. The hearing will be
conducted informally and technical rules of evidence will not apply.
Because a public hearing is designed to give interested parties an
opportunity to participate in the proceeding, there are no adversary
parties as such. Statements by participants will not be subject to
cross examination by other participants. A written transcript of the
hearing will be placed in the above docket for review. Anyone desiring
to purchase a copy of the transcript should make individual
arrangements with the court reporter recording the proceeding. The
Presiding Officer is authorized to strike from the record statements
which he/she deems irrelevant or repetitious and to impose reasonable
limits on the duration of the statement of any witness. This
information will be available for public inspection at the EPA Air
Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0841 (see ADDRESSES).

II. Background

    The background for this proposal, including the text of the letter
from the Governor of Illinois requesting that RFG requirements be
applied in the East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, is set forth in
the companion direct final rule also published in today's Federal
Register.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO. EPA notes that the
economic impacts of the RFG program were assessed in EPA's Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the 1994 RFG rules. See 59 FR 7810-7811 (February
16, 1994). In that analysis the production cost of RFG was estimated to
be 4 to 8 cents per gallon more than conventional gasoline. Since
conventional gas regulations have evolved since that time to be more
like RFG and since the State has a low RVP requirement that also more
closely resembles RFG, EPA expects the costs of RFG in the East St.
Louis area to be at the low end or lower than this range. Nonetheless,
using the 4 to 8 cent per gallon estimate, the cost of the program in
East St. Louis would be significantly lower than the trigger for a
significant regulatory action.

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.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements that apply to the RFG/anti-dumping program (see
59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994), and has assigned OMB control number
2060-0277 (EPA ICR No. 1951.08).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    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 EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
has not more than 1,500 employees (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.
    In promulgating the RFG and the related anti-dumping regulations
for conventional gasoline, the Agency analyzed the impact of the
regulations on small businesses. The Agency concluded that the
regulations may possibly have some economic effect on a substantial
number of small refiners, but that the regulations may not
significantly affect other small entities, such as gasoline blenders,
terminal operators, service stations and ethanol blenders. See 59 FR
7810-7811 (February 16, 1994). As stated in the preamble to the final
RFG/anti-dumping rule, exempting small refiners from the RFG
regulations would result in the failure of meeting CAA standards. 59 FR
7810. However, since most small refiners are located in the mountain
states or in California, which has its own RFG program, the vast
majority of small refiners are unaffected by the federal RFG
requirements (although all refiners of conventional gasoline are
subject to the anti-dumping requirements). Moreover, all businesses,
large and small, maintain the option to produce conventional gasoline
to be sold in areas not obligated by the Act to receive RFG or those
areas which have not chosen to opt into the RFG program. A complete
analysis of the effect of the RFG/anti-dumping regulations on small
businesses is contained in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis which
was prepared for the RFG and anti-dumping rulemaking, and can be found
in the docket for that rulemaking. The docket number is: EPA Air Docket
A-92-12.
    Today's proposed rule will affect only those refiners, importers or
blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import RFG for sale in
the East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, and gasoline distributors
and retail stations in those areas. As discussed above, EPA determined
that, because of their location, the vast majority of small refiners
would be unaffected by the RFG requirements. For the same reason, most
small refiners will be unaffected by today's action. Other small
entities, such as gasoline distributors and retail stations located in
East St. Louis, which will become a covered area as a result of today's
proposed rule, will be subject to the same requirements as those small
entities which are located in current RFG covered areas. The Agency did
not find the RFG regulations to significantly affect these entities.
Based on this, EPA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a
significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that 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 one year. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Although EPA does
not believe that UMRA imposes requirements for this rulemaking, EPA
notes that the environmental and economic impacts of the RFG program
were assessed in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 1994 RFG
rules.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), 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.''
    This proposed rule 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. The proposed rule would only
impose requirements on certain refiners and other entities in the
gasoline distribution system, and not on States. The requirements of
the proposed rule will be enforced by the federal government at the
national level. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 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 proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Today's proposed rule will affect only those refiners, importers or
blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import RFG for sale in
the East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, and gasoline distributors
and retail stations in those areas. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks,'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically
significant.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Effect Energy
Supply

    This proposed 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 Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, directs us to
use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless
it would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use
of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Statutory Authority

    The Statutory authority for the action proposed today is granted to
EPA by sections 211(c) and (k) and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k) and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution.

    Dated: December 20, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E6-22161 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


safety-sensitive services by contract to a part 119 certificate holder
with authority to operate under parts 121 and/or 135 of this chapter or
an operator as defined in Sec.  91.147 of this chapter, use the
following chart to determine what you must do if you opt to have your
own alcohol testing program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                And you opt to conduct your own Alcohol
         If you . . .               Testing Program, you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Are a part 145             (i) Have an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse
 certificate holder.            Prevention Program Operations
                                Specifications or register with the FAA,
                                Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug
                                Abatement Division (AAM-800), 800
                                Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
                                20591,
                               (ii) Implement an FAA alcohol testing
                                program no later than the date you start
                                performing safety-sensitive functions
                                for a part 119 certificate holder with
                                the authority to operate under parts 121
                                and/or 135, or operator as defined in
                                Sec.   91.147 of this chapter, and
                               (iii) Meet the requirements of this
                                subpart as if you were an employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Are a contractor.........  (i) Register with the FAA, Office of
                                Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement
                                Division (AAM-800), 800 Independence
                                Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
                               (ii) Implement an FAA alcohol testing
                                program no later than the date you start
                                performing safety-sensitive functions
                                for a part 119 certificate holder with
                                authority to operate under parts 121 and/
                                or 135, or operator as defined in Sec.
                                91.147 of this chapter, and
                               (iii) Meet the requirements of this
                                subpart as if you were an employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (d)(1) To obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program
Operations Specification, you must contact your FAA Principal
Operations Inspector or Principal Maintenance Inspector. Provide him/
her with the following information:
    (i) Company name.
    (ii) Certificate number.
    (iii) Telephone number.
    (iv) Address where your drug and alcohol testing program records
are kept.
    (v) Whether you have 50 or more covered employees, or 49 or fewer
covered employees. (Part 119 certificate holders with authority to
operate only under part 121 of this chapter are not required to provide
this information.)
    (2) You must certify on your Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention
Program Operations Specification, issued by your FAA Principal
Operations Inspector or Principal Maintenance Inspector, that you will
comply with this part and 49 CFR part 40.
    (3) You are required to obtain only one Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse
Prevention Program Operations Specification to satisfy this requirement
under this part.
    (4) You must update the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention
Program Operations Specification when any changes to the information
contained in the Operation Specification occur.
    (e)(1) To register with the FAA, submit the following information:
    (i) Company name.
    (ii) Telephone number.
    (iii) Address where your drug and alcohol testing program records
are kept.
    (iv) Type of safety-sensitive functions you perform for an employer
(such as flight instruction duties, aircraft dispatcher duties,
maintenance or preventive maintenance duties, ground security
coordinator duties, aviation screening duties, air traffic control
duties).
    (v) Whether you have 50 or more covered employees, or 49 or fewer
covered employees.
    (vi) A signed statement indicating that: Your company will comply
with this part and 49 CFR part 40; and, if you are a contractor, you
intend to provide safety-sensitive functions by contract to a part 119
certificate holder with authority to operate under part 121 and/or 135
of this chapter, an operator as defined by Sec.  91.147 of this
chapter, or an air traffic control facility not operated by the FAA or
by or under contract to the U.S. Military.
    (2) Send this information in the form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator, in duplicate to: The Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM-800), 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    (3) Update the registration information as changes occur. Send the
updates in duplicate to the address specified in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section.
    (4) This registration will satisfy the registration requirements
for both your drug testing program under subpart E of this part and
your alcohol testing program under this subpart.

Sec.  120.227  Employees located outside the U.S.

    (a) No covered employee shall be tested for alcohol misuse while
located outside the territory of the United States.
    (1) Each covered employee who is assigned to perform safety-
sensitive functions solely outside the territory of

the United States shall be removed from the random testing pool upon
the inception of such assignment.
    (2) Each covered employee who is removed from the random testing
pool under this paragraph shall be returned to the random testing pool
when the employee resumes the performance of safety-sensitive functions
wholly or partially within the territory of the United States.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart shall not apply to any person
who performs a safety-sensitive function by contract for an employer
outside the territory of the United States.

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

0
14. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113,
41721, 44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904,
44906, 44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.

Sec.  121.429  [Removed and Reserved]

0
15. Section 121.429 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  121.455  [Removed and Reserved]

0
16. Section 121.455 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  121.457  [Removed and Reserved]

0
17. Section 121.457 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  121.458  [Removed and Reserved]

0
18. Section 121.458 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  121.459  [Removed and Reserved]

0
19. Section 121.459 is removed and reserved.

Appendix I to Part 121  [Removed and Reserved]

0
20. Appendix I is removed and reserved.

Appendix J to Part 121  [Removed and Reserved]

0
21. Appendix J is removed and reserved.

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
22. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.

0
23. Section 135.1(a)(5) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  135.1 Applicability

    (a) * * *
    (5) Nonstop Commercial Air Tour flights conducted for compensation
or hire in accordance with Sec.  119.1(e)(2) of this chapter that begin
and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute-mile
radius of that airport; provided further that these operations must
comply only with the drug and alcohol testing requirements in
Sec. Sec.  120.31, 120.33, 120.35, 120.37, and 135.39 of this chapter;
and with the provisions of part 136, subpart A, and Sec.  91.147 of
this chapter by September 11, 2007.
* * * * *

Sec.  135.249  [Removed and Reserved]

0
24. Section 135.249 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  135.251  [Removed and Reserved]

0
25. Section 135.251 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  135.253  [Removed and Reserved]

0
26. Section 135.253 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  135.255  [Removed and Reserved]

0
27. Section 135.255 is removed and reserved.

Sec.  135.353  [Removed and Reserved]

0
28. Section 135.353 is removed and reserved.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2009.
Lynne A. Osmus,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-11289 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44027-44028]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14624-000]

Alamo Dam Hydro Partners: Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 6, 2014, Alamo Dam Hydro Partners filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Alamo Dam
Hydroelectric Project (Alamo Dam Project or project) to be

located on Bill Williams River, near the town of Weldon, La Paz County,
Arizona. The project would be located at the existing Army Corps of
Engineers' Alamo Dam. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An intake
structure consisting of a concrete box with screens and a 90 degree
bend with a bell fitting; (2) a 36-inch-diameter, 1,400-foot-long,
underground penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing two turbine
generators with a combined power generation of 950 kilowatts with an
operating head of 125 feet; (4) a new approximately 500-foot-long
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the project would be 2,200 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Justin Rundle, PE, Alamo Dam Hydro Partners,
6514 S. 41st Lane, Phoenix, Arizona 85041; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Adam Beeco; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14624-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14624) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 21, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17760 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6275]
[DOCID:fr06fe09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13053-000]

Green Wave Energy Solutions, LLC; Notice Clarifying Deadline for
Filing Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

January 29, 2009.
    On December 9, 2008, the Commission issued notice that Green Wave
Energy Solutions, LLC filed an application on October 19, 2007,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Green Wave Mendocino Project,
to be located on the Pacific Ocean in Mendocino County, California.
Pursuant to that notice the deadline for filing comments, motions to
intervene, or competing applications is 60 days from December 9, 2008.
    The Commission has been requested to correct any confusion as to
the deadline date. According to 18 CFR 385.2007, when the deadline
falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the notice period ends at the close of
business on the next business day. This notice clarifies that the
deadline date for filing any documents is Monday, February 9, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2522 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 31156-31157]
[DOCID:fr30my08-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213

Extension:
Rule 15c2-5, OMB Control No. 3235-0198, SEC File No. 270-195

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval. The Code of Federal Regulations
citation to this collection of information is the following rule: 17
CFR 240.15c2-5.
    Rule 15c2-5 prohibits a broker-dealer from arranging or extending
certain loans to persons in connection with the offer or sale of
securities unless, before any element of the transaction is entered
into, the broker-dealer: (1) Delivers to the person a written statement
containing the exact nature and extent of the person's obligations
under the loan arrangement; the risks and disadvantages of the loan
arrangement; and all commissions, discounts, and other remuneration
received and to be received in connection with the transaction by the
broker-dealer or certain related persons (unless the person receives
certain materials from the lender or broker-dealer which contain the
required information); and (2) obtains from the person information on
the person's financial situation and needs, reasonably determines that
the transaction is suitable for the person, and retains on file and
makes available to the person on request a written statement setting
forth the broker-dealer's basis for determining that the transaction
was suitable. The collection of information required by the Rule is
necessary to execute the Commission's mandate under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'') to
prevent fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive acts and practices by
broker-dealers.
    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 50
respondents that require an aggregate total of 600 hours to comply with
the Rule. Each of these approximately 50 registered broker-dealers
makes an estimated 6 annual responses, for an aggregate total of 300
responses per year. Each response takes approximately 2 hours to
complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 600 burden
hours. The approximate cost per hour is $40.00 for clerical labor,
resulting in a total compliance cost of $24,000 (600 hours @ $40.00 per
hour).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312
or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted
within 60 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 21, 2008.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12015 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P