[Federal Register: March 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 15239-15241]
[DOCID:fr21mr08-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57504; File No. SR-NASD-2007-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.);
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Relating to Amendments to the NASD Rule 9700 Series To Streamline the
Procedural Rules Applicable to General Grievances Related to FINRA
Automated Systems

March 14, 2008.
    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 July 23, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'') (n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
FINRA.\3\ On February 7, 2008, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule
change filed by the NASD to amend the NASD's Certificate of
Incorporation to reflect its name change to Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the
consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and
NYSE Regulation, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56146
(July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-053).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA proposes to amend the NASD Rule 9700 Series to streamline the
existing procedural rules applicable to general grievances related to
FINRA automated systems, to provide discretionary review by the
National Adjudicatory Council (``NAC''), acting through the NAC's
Review Subcommittee,\4\ and to delete certain text that is no longer
necessary. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
principal office of FINRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room and
http://www.finra.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of the proposed rule change, the term ``Review
Subcommittee'' will have the meaning set forth in NASD Rule
9120(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The NASD Rule 9700 Series, Procedures on Grievances Concerning the
Automated Systems, provides

redress, where justified, for persons aggrieved by the operations of
any automated quotation, execution or communication system owned or
operated by FINRA that is not otherwise provided for under the Code of
Procedure (``Rule 9000 Series'') or the Uniform Practice Code (``Rule
11000 Series''). The Rule 9700 Series was established to ensure
adequate procedural protections to users of FINRA systems.\5\ Although
by its terms the Rule 9700 Series has potentially broader application,
it historically has been used only for appeals of staff Over-the-
Counter Bulletin Board (``OTCBB'') eligibility determinations under
Rule 6530.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27867, 55 FR 12978
(April 6, 1990) (order approving SR-NASD-90-6).
    \6\ The OTCBB is a facility for the publication of quotations in
eligible OTC equity securities of issuers that are subject to the
filing of financial reports with the Commission (or other
appropriate regulator) and are current in their reporting. FINRA
staff monitors the submission of such periodic reports to determine
an issuer's initial and continued eligibility for quotation on the
OTCBB and, pursuant to Rule 6530, restricts the quoting of
securities of issuers that are late or delinquent in filing periodic
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently under the Rule 9700 Series, a party that is aggrieved by
the operation of a FINRA automated system may request a review by a
hearing panel. In accordance with the Rule 9700 Series, the aggrieved
party may also request a review of the hearing panel's decision by a
Committee designated by the Board.\7\ With respect to OTCBB eligibility
reviews, both of these reviews pursuant to the Rule 9700 Series are
solely to determine whether the issuer filed a complete report by the
applicable due date and, thus, whether the security of the issuer is
eligible for continued quotation. There is no discretion to grant
extensions of time for ineligible securities to become eligible or any
other form of relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Currently, the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council
(``NLHRC'') has authority to review hearing panel decisions and has
only ever had one such review, which upheld the decision of the
hearing panel. NLHRC decisions may be called for further review by
FINRA's Board solely upon the request of one or more Governors.
Finally, an aggrieved party also has the right to appeal a decision
to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that these reviews focus on one narrow issue, FINRA now
proposes to amend the Rule 9700 Series to streamline the review
process. Specifically, reviews of staff determinations under the Rule
9700 Series would be adjudicated by a Hearing Officer \8\ appointed by
FINRA's Office of Hearing Officers (``OHO''), subject to discretionary
review by the NAC, acting through the NAC's Review Subcommittee.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes of the proposed rule change, the term ``Hearing
Officer'' will have the meaning set forth in Rule 9120(p).
    \9\ Subject to the NAC's discretionary review (acting through
the NAC's Review Subcommittee), a Hearing Officer currently acts as
the adjudicator in expedited actions involving (1) a failure to pay
FINRA dues, fees or other charges and (2) a failure to pay an
arbitration award or related settlement, pursuant to Rules 9553 and
9554, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the review hearing, the Hearing Officer will prepare a
written decision and provide it to the NAC's Review Subcommittee, which
would have the ability to call the decision for review during certain
specified timeframes.\10\ As is currently the case with most expedited
actions under the Rule 9550 Series, aggrieved parties will not have the
right to appeal the decision to the NAC's Review Subcommittee.\11\ The
Hearing Officer decision, if not called for review by the NAC's Review
Subcommittee, would constitute final FINRA action on the matter.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The NAC's Review Subcommittee will have the right to call
an OHO decision for review within 21 days after receipt of such
decision, which is consistent with the timeframe for the Review
Subcommittee's call right involving expedited actions under the Rule
9550 Series.
    \11\ Under many of the existing rules with expedited components,
respondents may not appeal the matter to a FINRA appellate body,
such as the NAC. For example, the decision of the Hearing Officer
under Rule 9553 (Failure to Pay Dues, Fees and Other Charges) is not
appealable, at the request of a party, to the NAC or any other
internal, FINRA appellate body under the existing system.
    \12\ Currently under Rule 9780, FINRA's Board has a right to
review NLHRC decisions issued pursuant to Rule 9770. The proposed
rule change would provide the NAC (rather than the Board) with a
call right, which is consistent with other expedited actions under
the Rule 9550 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a decision is called for review by the NAC's Review
Subcommittee, the NAC or NAC's Review Subcommittee would appoint a
Subcommittee \13\ of the NAC to conduct a review.\14\ Based on its
review, the Subcommittee would make a recommendation to the NAC and the
NAC, in turn, would issue a decision on the matter. The decision of the
NAC would constitute final FINRA action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes of the proposed rule change, the term
``Subcommittee'' will have the meaning set forth in Rule 9120(cc).
The Subcommittee will be comprised as set forth in Rule 9331(a)(1).
    \14\ If the NAC's Review Subcommittee calls a matter for review,
the timelines for such review would be as set forth in proposed Rule
9760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An aggrieved party also would continue to have the right to appeal
the Hearing Officer's decision, or the NAC decision, as the case may
be, to the SEC. FINRA believes that this abbreviated review process is
appropriate given the narrow and straightforward issue presented and
the experience of OHO and the NAC in adjudicating matters. FINRA
further believes the streamlined review process strikes an appropriate
balance between the need to ensure fairness to aggrieved parties and
the need for expedited action in these instances.
    FINRA also proposes to make conforming and non-substantive changes
to Rules 6530 and 9120 to reflect the amended review process contained
in the Rule 9700 Series. There are no proposed changes to other aspects
of the review process relating to OTCBB eligibility determinations
under Rule 6530 (e.g., notifications and time periods for requesting
review, the scope of review and the applicable fees for such
review).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In accordance with Rule 6530, an aggrieved party requesting
a review of an OTCBB eligibility determination by a Hearing Officer
will continue to be required to pay a $4,000 fee for such review.
Given that aggrieved parties would only have the right to appeal to
OHO and any further level of review would be at the discretion of
the NAC's Review Subcommittee, the additional $4,000 fee currently
provided for in Rule 6530(f)(3) would be eliminated. Also in
accordance with Rule 6530, a request for review will stay the OTCBB
security's removal until the Hearing Officer issues a decision. If
the NAC's Review Subcommittee calls a matter for review, the OTCBB
security's removal will be stayed until the NAC issues a decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA proposes to make a technical change to the text
of Rule 9710. As noted above, Rule 9710 provides that the scope of the
Rule 9700 Series is to provide redress, where justified, for persons
aggrieved by the operations of any automated quotation, execution or
communication system owned or operated by FINRA that is not otherwise
provided for under the NASD Code of Procedure (Rule 9000 Series) or the
Uniform Practice Code (Rule 11000 Series). There are certain appeal and
procedural rights contained in FINRA Rules other than the Rule 9000
Series or the Rule 11000 Series. For example, within the Alternative
Display Facility (``ADF'') Rules (the Rule 4000A Series), there are
certain appeals rights and procedures relating to ADF related
grievances (e.g., ADF Trading Center excused withdrawals reviews under
Rule 4619A). In such cases, given the language in Rule 9710, there may
be confusion whether the Rule 9700 Series or the Rule 4000A Series
governs such disputes. Therefore, FINRA proposes to amend the text of
Rule 9710 to clarify that the scope of the Rule 9700 Series is to
address general grievances not otherwise provided for by any other
FINRA Rules. FINRA believes that this clarification will alleviate any
potential confusion in this regard and is consistent with the history
and intent of the Rule 9700 Series.
    Finally, FINRA proposes to delete language in Rule 6530(e) that is
no longer necessary. Specifically, Rule 6530(e) contains text
indicating that periodic filings for reporting periods

ended before October 1, 2005 will not count toward determining
eligibility for quotation on the OTCBB pursuant to paragraph (e). Given
that the text relating to the October 1, 2005 timeframe is no longer
necessary, FINRA proposes to delete that text as part of this proposed
rule change.
    FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be 30 days following
publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\16\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change strikes
an appropriate balance between the need to ensure fairness to aggrieved
parties and the need for expedited action in these instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    FINRA has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
on this proposed rule change. FINRA has not received any unsolicited
written comments from members or other interested parties.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASD-2007-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-52. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-52 and should be
submitted on or before April 11, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5709 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


December 14, 2011

Note:

Subject: Cost estimates for MATS rule monitoring requirements.

To: SPPD management and MATS rule writers

From: 	Steffan Johnson , SPPD, MPG 	 This is a note regarding the estimated costs of monitoring as required by the MATS rule.  Cost estimates are generated from the CEMS cost model, 2007 version, publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html.

The annual monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $157.5 million. This includes 698,907 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $49.0 million per year, and total non-labor capital costs of $108.2 million per year. This estimate includes initial and annual performance tests, semiannual excess emission reports, developing a monitoring plan, notifications, and record-keeping. Initial capital expenses to purchase monitoring equipment for affected units are estimated at a cost of $231.1 million. This includes 504,629 labor hours at a total labor cost of $35.0 million for planning, selection, purchase, installation, configuration, and certification of the new systems and total non-labor capital costs of 196.1 million. All burden estimates are in 2007 dollars and represent the most cost effective monitoring approach for affected facilities.


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0448; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West
Virginia;

Clean Air Interstate Rule

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a revision to the West Virginia State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 8, 2007.  This revision
incorporates provisions related to the implementation of EPA’s Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005 and subsequently
revised on April 28, 2006 and December 13, 2006, and the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOx) annual, and NOx ozone season emissions for the State of
West Virginia, promulgated on April 28, 2006 and subsequently revised on
December 13, 2006.  West Virginia is subject to the CAIR FIP that
implements the CAIR requirements by requiring certain EGUs to
participate in the EPA-administered Federal CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season cap-and-trade programs.  In accordance with the Clean
Air Act, EPA is approving this West Virginia SIP revision as an
abbreviated SIP revision which addresses the methodology to be used to
allocate annual and ozone season NOX allowances under the CAIR FIPs.  In
this action, EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is
amending the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply
to note that approval.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  The final rule is effective on [Insert date of
publication].

ADDRESSES:EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0448.  All documents in the electronic docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE,
Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
      e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On June 1, 2006, West Virginia submitted a full SIP revision to meet the
requirements of CAIR as promulgated on May 12, 2005.  The SIP revision
is comprised of three regulations:  45CSR39 (NOx annual trading
program); 45CSR40 (NOx ozone season trading program); and 45CSR41 (SO2
annual trading program).  The regulations adopted the 40 CFR part 96
model rules as set forth in the May 12, 2005 rulemaking, however,
because revisions to 40 CFR part 96 were finalized after the State had
started its rulemaking process, did not include the changes to the model
rules that were made as part of the April 28, 2006 CAIR FIP.
Consistent with the provisions of the CAIR, West Virginia submitted a
letter on June 8, 2007, requesting that

portions of its June 1, 2006 SIP revision be considered as an
abbreviated SIP revision.  The June 8, 2007 letter designated the NOx
allocation methodology provisions applicable to EGUs under the CAIR FIP
and originally submitted as part of its June 1, 2006 CAIR SIP revision
as replacing the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs.  Consistent
with this request, EPA is treating the following provisions of West
Virginia’s CAIR rules an abbreviated SIP revision: §§45-39-40,

45-39-41, and 45-39-42 ; and §§45-40-40, 45-40-41, and 45-40-42,
except for paragraphs 40.3, 42.2.c, 42.2.d, 42.2.e, 42.3.a.2, and
42.4.b.  The NOx allowance allocation methodology in these provisions of
West Virginia’s June 1, 2006 SIP revision is consistent with the
methodology in

part 96 and the FIP.

On September 13, 2007 (72 FR 52289), EPA published a direct final
rulemaking notice (DFRN) to approve the June 8, 2007 revision to West
Virginia’s SIP.  The DFRN approved, as an abbreviated SIP, West
Virginia’s methodology for allocating NOX allowances for the NOX
annual and NOX ozone season trading programs, which will be used to
allocate NOX allowances to sources in West Virginia, instead of the
federal allocation methodology otherwise provided in the FIP.  A
detailed discussion of the CAIR requirements, West Virginia’s CAIR
submittals, and EPA’s rationale for approval of the West Virginia’s
abbreviated SIP may be found in the DFRN and will not be repeated here.
In the DFRN, EPA stated that if adverse comment was received, it would
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public
that the rule

would not take effect.  On October 12, 2007, EPA received an adverse
comment from the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection.  EPA therefore withdrew the DFRN on November 7, 2007 (72 FR
62788).

II.  Public Comments and EPA Responses

Comment:  On October 12, 2007, the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CTDEP) submitted adverse comments on EPA’s
DFR notice approving West Virginia’s abbreviated CAIR SIP.  CTDEP
encourages EPA to approve state programs adopted to meet the emission
reduction requirements of CAIR.  However, it argues that before
approving state CAIR plans, EPA should evaluate individually and in the
aggregate each state’s clean air programs.  They argue such evaluation
is necessary to ensure that each state’s emissions do not
significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment.  CTDEP asserts its
belief that the CAIR program does not ensure that the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements to prohibit transported emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment in Connecticut and other
states will be met.  CTDEP expresses concern that EPA is determining
through this and other similar rulemakings that CAIR programs are
sufficient to meet States’ section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations.  CTDEP
asserts, based on EPA and State modeling for CAIR, that the levels of
transported pollution remaining after CAIR implementation are large
enough that, even with local controls, it may be difficult for
Connecticut to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2010.  Finally, CTDEP
questions EPA’s determination that highly cost effective controls are
adequate to address States’ section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations as
compared to “reasonable cost” controls that could be achieved to
effect more stringent NOx reductions.

Response:  EPA does not agree that it is appropriate or necessary for
EPA to conduct additional analysis before approving the West Virginia
abbreviated CAIR SIP for NOx allowances and NOx allowance methodology.
West Virginia has chosen an abbreviated SIP for NOx allowances and NOx
allocation methodology, one of four SIP elements for which states may
request an abbreviated SIP.  With an abbreviated SIP, the CAIR FIP
remains in place for West Virginia.  EPA’s proposed approval of West
Virginia’s abbreviated SIP would therefore only have the effect of
replacing, as provided for in the CAIR FIP, the corresponding FIP
provisions with the State’s preferred allocations and methodology.
EPA has evaluated this abbreviated SIP revision and determined that it
complies with the requirements of the CAIR FIP provisions regarding
abbreviated SIPs.  CTDEP does not challenge this determination.  Thus,
CTDEP’s comments do not specifically pertain to any aspect of EPA’s
proposed action to approve the West Virginia

CAIR SIP revision.  Rather, the comments appear to be directed broadly
at EPA’s decisions with regard to states’ section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
obligations.  These decisions were made by EPA in the context of the
CAIR rulemaking, which was promulgated on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162),
not in the proposed action to approve West Virginia’s abbreviated CAIR
SIP revision.  Therefore, CTDEP’s comments are not relevant to the
proposed action.   CTDEP had ample opportunity to submit comments both
during the comment period for the proposed CAIR rulemaking of January
30, 2004 (69 FR 4566) and during the comment period for the proposed
CAIR FIP of August 24, 2005 (70 FR 49708).  EPA’s proposal to approve
West Virginia’s abbreviated CAIR SIP did not reopen either the CAIR or
CAIR FIP rulemakings.  Consequently, CTDEP’s comments are not relevant
to this rulemaking, or timely with respect to the CAIR and CAIR FIP
rulemakings.  Thus, EPA does not believe it is necessary to conduct
additional analysis on whether West Virginia or any other state
satisfies the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) before approving the West
Virginia’s abbreviated CAIR SIP submission.

III.  Final Action

EPA is approving West Virginia’s abbreviated CAIR SIP revision
submitted on June 8, 2007, as discussed above.  West Virginia is subject
to the CAIR FIPs, which require participation in the EPA-administered
SO2, NOx annual, and NOx ozone season cap-and-trade programs.  Under

this abbreviated SIP revision and, consistent with the flexibility given
to States in the FIPs, West Virgnia has adopted provisions for
allocating allowances under the CAIR FIP NOX annual and ozone season
trading programs.  As provided for in the CAIR FIPs, these provisions in
the abbreviated SIP revision will replace or supplement the
corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs in West Virginia.  The
abbreviated SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40

CFR 51.123(p) and (ee), with regard to NOX annual and NOX ozone season
emissions.  In this final action, EPA is not making any changes to the
CAIR FIP, but is amending the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP
trading rules simply to note approval of West Virginia’s abbreviated
CAIR SIP.

EPA is today taking action only on this request for an abbreviated SIP
revision and not the full CAIR SIP revision originally submitted, which
will be the subject of a separate rulemaking

action.  In the June 8, 2007 letter, West Virginia states that it will
revise and promulgate its

CAIR rules 45CSR39, 45CSR40, and 45CSR41 to incorporate the revisions to
part 96 and indicates that it plans to submit an amended CAIR SIP
revision to EPA in 2008.

IV.  Effective Date

EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become effective
on the date of

publication because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of the approval, which allows the Commonwealth to make
allocations under its CAIR rules. The expedited effective date for this
action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that

rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if
the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction''
and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows

an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule.''

CAIR SIP approvals relieve states and CAIR sources within states from
being subject to allowance allocation provisions in the CAIR FIPs that
otherwise would apply to it, allowing States to make their own allowance
allocations based on their SIP-approved State rule. The

relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to allow an expedited
effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because

this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state
law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).   This rule also does not have
tribal implications

because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act.  This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks( (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for

the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to

each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.   EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  This rule is not a
(major rule( as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action

to approve West Virginia’s abbreviated CAIR SIP revision may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 97

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

__December 06, 2007_______		            _____________/s/________________

Dated:                                				Donald S. Welsh,

                                      				Regional Administrator,

                                      				Region III.

40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart XX ( West Virginia

2.  In ( 52.2520, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding
entries for 45 CSR 39 and 40 at the end of the table.  The table in
paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry for Article 3, Chapter 64
of the Code of West Virginia at the end of the table.  The amendments
read as follows:

( 52.2520  	Identification of plan.

*	*	*	*	*

(c) * * *

	EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE WEST VIRGINIA SIP

State citation

[Chapter 16(20 or 45 CSR ]

Title/subject

State effective date

EPA approval date

Additional explanation/

citation at 40 CFR ( 52.2565

*******

[45 CSR]

Series 39	Control of Annual Nitrogen Oxide Emissions to Mitigate
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Ozides

Section 45-39-40

CAIR NOx Annual Trading Budget

5/1/06

[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number where the
document begins]

Only Phase I (2009 – 2014)

Section 45-39-41

Timing Requirements for CAIR NOx Annual Allowance Allocations

5/1/06	[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number
where the document begins]

Only Phase I (2009 – 2014)

Section 45-39-42

CAIR NOx Annual Allowance Allocations

5/1/06	[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number
where the document begins]

Only for Phase I (2009 – 2014)

[45 CSR]

Series 40	Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxide Emissions to Mitigate
Interstate Transport of Ozone and Nitrogen Oxides

Section 45-40-40

CAIR NOx Ozone Season Trading Budget

5/1/06

[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number where the
document begins]

1.  Except for subsection 40.3, and non-EGUs in subsection 40.1 table

2.  Only Phase I (2009 – 2014)

Section 45-40-41

Timing Requirements for CAIR NOx Ozone Season Allowance Allocations

5/1/06	[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number
where the document begins]	Only Phase I (2009 – 2014)

Section 45-40-42

CAIR NOx Ozone Season Allowance Allocations

5/1/06	[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number
where the document begins]	1.  Except for subsections 42.2.d, 42.2.e,
42.3.a.2, and 42.4.b.

2.  Only Phase I (2009 – 2014)

*     *     *     *     *

(e)* * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision

Applicable geographic area

State submittal date

EPA approval date

Additional explanation

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

Article 3, Chapter 64 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931

Statewide	5/1/06

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

Effective date of March 11, 2006

PART 97 - [AMENDED]

3.  The authority citation for 40 CFR part 97 continues to read as
follows:

               Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and
7651, et seq.

4.  Appendix A to Subpart EE is amended by adding the entry for “West
Virginia” in alphabetical order under paragraph 1 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EE of Part 97 – States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

1. *  *  *

	West Virginia (for control periods 2009 – 2014)

	    *  *  *

5.  Appendix A to Subpart EEEE is amended by adding the entry for West
Virginia in alphabetical order under paragraph 1 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97 – States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

	*  *  *

	West Virginia (for control periods 2009 – 2014)

*  *  *  *  *

 PAGE

 PAGE  8

 PAGE   11


[Federal Register: February 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8037-8039]
[DOCID:fr15fe06-148]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53247; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto To Amend the Phlx's
Rules Governing the Hours of Trading in Equity Options and Narrow-Based
Index Options

February 7, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 4, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. On January 20,
2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change on January 31, 2006.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons and to approve the amended proposal on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, replacing the original filing in its
entirety, the Exchange made clarifying changes to the proposed rule
text and its discussion.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange requested that the
implementation date for the new closing time be changed from
February 1, 2006, as was originally proposed, to February 13, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rules 101, 1012, 1047, 1047A and
1101A and Phlx Floor Procedure Advice (``OFPA'') G-2 to indicate that
equity options and narrow-based index options may trade until 4 p.m.
and not 4:02 p.m. (e.s.t.). The Exchange proposes that these changes be
implemented on February 13, 2006.\5\ The text of the proposed rule
change, as amended, is available on the Phlx's Web site (http://www.phlx.com
), at the principal office of the Phlx, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    According to the Exchange, the purpose of the proposed rule change,
as amended, is to amend Phlx Rules governing the hours of trading in
equity options and narrow-based index options. Specifically, the Phlx
proposes to amend its rules to change the close of normal trading hours
in equity options and in narrow-based (industry) index options from
4:02 p.m. to 4 p.m. (e.s.t.). After the change, the time of the close
of trading in these Phlx options will correspond to the normal time set
for the close of trading on the primary exchanges listing the stocks
underlying the Phlx options. The primary exchanges generally close at 4
p.m. (e.s.t.).
    The Exchange notes that, in 1997, the closing time for equity
options and narrow-based index options was changed from 4:10 p.m. to
4:02 p.m. (e.s.t.). The rationale to continue trading options for some
limited period of time after the close of trading on the primary
markets for the underlying securities was that the extended period
allowed options traders to respond to late reports of closing prices
over the consolidated tape. If the price of a late reported trade on an
underlying security was substantially different from the previous
reported price, the extended trading session would give options traders
the opportunity to bring options quotes in line with the closing price
of the underlying security.
    However, because of improvements in the processing and reporting of
transactions, the Phlx believes that there are no longer significant
delays in the reporting of closing prices, and, therefore, a two minute
session is no longer needed to trade options after the underlying
securities close trading. Additionally, the Exchange believes that
pricing aberrations can occur if an option is traded when the
underlying stock is no longer trading, since there is a close
relationship in the price of the underlying stock and the overlying
option. As a result, the Phlx believes that it is difficult for the
market to price options accurately when the underlying security is not
trading.
    At this time, the Exchange is not proposing to change the closing
time of 4:15 p.m. (e.s.t.) for broad-based (market) index options
because it does not believe that a significant news announcement by the
issuer of one component stock of a broad-based index is likely to have
a significant effect on the price of that broad-based index.\6\ The
Exchange recognizes, however, that indexes that are narrow-based may be
subject to the same pricing problems as options on individual stocks
\7\ and, as noted above, proposes to change the relevant closing time
to 4:00 p.m. (e.s.t.). Accordingly, the Phlx proposes to amend Phlx
Rules 101, 1012, 1047, 1047A and 1101A and OFPA G-2 to change the
references to times from 4:02 p.m. to 4 p.m. (e.s.t.) for equity
options and certain index based options as described above.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nor is the Exchange proposing to change the closing time of
4:15 p.m. (e.s.t.) for Exchange-Traded Fund Share Options. However,
the Exchange is proposing technical changes in the noted rules to
clarify that options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and broad-based
index options may trade until 4:15 p.m. (e.s.t.).
    \7\ According to the Exchange, a significant news announcement
on one component of such an index could have a significant effect on
the index.
    \8\ In addition, the Exchange notes that the reference to a 4:10
p.m. closing time in Phlx Rule 101 will similarly be changed to 4:00
p.m. (e.s.t.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, if it or some but not all options
exchanges were to unilaterally modify its closing time, the existence
of dissimilar closing times applicable to the different options
exchanges would likely lead to

confusion for options investors and broker-dealers. It is the Phlx's
understanding that all of the options exchanges have determined to
change their respective rules to revise the closing time in equity
options and narrow-based index options from 4:02 p.m. to 4 p.m.
(e.s.t.). The Phlx further understands that the options exchanges
collectively have determined that they would implement this new closing
time on February 13, 2006.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular,
because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change, as amended.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form at (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2006-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-01. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2006-01 and should be submitted on or before March
8, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\12\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the need to
continue trading options for some period of time after the close of
trading in the underlying securities markets is no longer necessary
because improvements in the processing and reporting of transactions
have obviated the need to respond to late reports of closing prices
over the consolidated tape in order to bring options quotes in line
with the closing price of the underlying security. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that allowing two additional minutes of options
trading after trading on the underlying primary exchanges has ended may
actually result in pricing aberrations. Because the two minute delay
between the close of normal trading in equity options and narrow-based
index options and the corresponding underlying equity markets is no
longer necessary, the Commission believes that eliminating the delay is
in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors
and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Therefore, the
Commission finds that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to
amend its rules to change the close of normal trading hours in equity
and narrow-based index options from 4:02 p.m. (e.s.t.) to 4 p.m.
(e.s.t.).
    The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposed rule
change, as amended, before the thirtieth day after publication of
notice thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission notes that all
of the options exchanges have filed substantially similar proposals and
seek to implement these industry-wide changes simultaneously on
February 13, 2006.\14\ For example, on December 20, 2005, the
Commission published for comment in the Federal Register a similar
proposed rule change submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'').\15\ The Commission received no comments on the
CBOE's proposed rule change. The Commission believes that the Phlx's
proposed rule change, as amended, raises no new issues or novel
regulatory questions. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\16\ for approving the proposed
rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after publication
in the Federal Register. In

addition, because the existence of dissimilar closing times among the
options exchanges could lead to confusion for options investors and
broker-dealers, the Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval
of the proposed rule change, as amended, to enable the six options
exchanges to simultaneously amend their hours of trading on an
industry-wide basis in a uniform manner.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See note 17, infra.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52949 (December 13,
2005), 70 FR 75513 (December 20, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-104). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53055 (January 5, 2006), 71 FR
2279 (January 13, 2006) (SR-ISE-2005-58).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ The Commission notes that it is simultaneously approving
similar proposals from the other options exchanges. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 53244 (SR-Amex-2006-003); 53245(SR-BSE-
2006-02); 53246 (SR-CBOE-2005-104); 53248 (SR-ISE-2005-58); and
53249 (SR-PCX-2005-138) (February 7, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change and Amendments No. 1 and 2
thereto (SR-Phlx-2006-01) be, and hereby are, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2115 Filed 2-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 29065]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-132-000.
    Applicants: FPL Energy Wyman IV LLC, Public Service Company of New
Hampshire.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act
and Request for Expedited Action of FPL Energy Wyman IV LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG17-119-000.
    Applicants: Buckthorn Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Buckthorn Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-120-000.
    Applicants: Bearkat Wind Energy I, LLC.
    Description: Bearkat Wind Energy I, LLC's Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1877-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Huntington
Beach Energy Project SA No. 193 to be effective 6/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1878-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Alamitos
Energy Center Project SA No. 194 to be effective 6/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1879-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205 filing of Rate Schedule
1 revisions for Ramapo PARs cost recovery to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1880-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-21_SA 900
Termination of Entergy--Southcoast Wind LGIA to be effective 9/4/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

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

    Dated: June 21, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13382 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 74026-74027]
[DOCID:fr30no10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-29-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of
Application

November 22, 2010.
    Take notice that on November 12, 2010, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CenterPoint), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston,
Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP11-29-000, a request for abandonment
authority, pursuant to 18 CFR part 157

and section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, to abandon, in place, the Enid
Compressor Station (Enid Station) located on Line 2 in Garfield County,
Oklahoma. Specifically, CenterPoint proposes to abandon two 1,200
horsepower compressor units and one 1,350 horsepower compressor unit,
fuel meter, compressor building and associated yard and station piping
located at the Enid Station. CenterPoint states that the Enid Station
has been inactive for several years, is no longer needed and no service
will be abandoned or adversely affected, all as more fully set forth in
the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to B.
Michelle Willis, Manager, Regulatory & Compliance CenterPoint Energy
Gas Transmission Company, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, LA 71151,
telephone no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lawrence O. Thomas, Senior
Director, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, LA 71151, telephone no. (318)
429-2804, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Mark C.
Schroeder, Sr. VP and General Counsel, P.O Box 1700, Houston, TX 77210,
telephone no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: December 13, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30028 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Supporting Statement

for

Information Collection Request

Emissions Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad
Compression-ignition and On-highway Heavy Duty Engines

(Proposed Rule for Alternative Fuel

Conversions of Heavy-Duty Engines)

EPA ICR 1864.15

OMB Control Number 2060-0287

May 2010

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) 	Title And Number Of The Information Collection

	Emissions Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad
Compression-ignition and On-highway Heavy Duty Engines (Proposed Rule
for Alternative Fuel Conversions of Heavy-Duty Engines); EPA ICR number
1684.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0287.

1(b) 	Short Characterization/Abstract

	The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes designed to
simplify and lessen the burdens for manufacturers seeking approval to
introduce into commerce in the U.S. light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles and
engines that have been converted for use of fuels that the original
models were not designed for, such as from gasoline to liquid propane
gas (LPG) or compressed natural gas (CNG). This ICR covers the
heavy-duty portion of the proposal.

	These changes would start taking effect with 2011 model year light-duty
vehicles and trucks or upon the effective date of the final rule.
Starting then, manufacturers will be given expanded options for
submitting simplified applications. ICRs normally have a three year time
horizon. This ICR will cover the expected paperwork burden changes for
the three years after the effective date of the final rule.

Under previous iterations of this ICR, EPA analyzed the cost of
obtaining a certificate of conformity under current regulations and used
that as a baseline cost.  This Supporting Statement addresses only the
anticipated paperwork burden of the proposed rule in relation to the
existing baseline.

It is important to note that HD conversions have not received as much
interest as LD conversions.   As a result, EPA’s experience with and
data available on HD conversions is limited.  For example, in model year
(MY) 2008, EPA only received seven certification applications from four
different converters. In 2009, the number drop to three applications
from three different manufacturers. Despite limited historical data on
HD conversions, EPA has evaluated the cost a converter would incur to
fully certify a HD engine that has been converted at each of three
stages in the life of the engine: (1) beginning of useful life, (2)
mid-useful life, and (3) outside the useful life.  These costs are then
compared to the baseline -- the current cost of certification.

	It has been estimated that a total of 8 manufacturers will respond to
this collection (proposed rule only) with an approximate cost of
$753,786.

Section 2: Need For And Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority For The Collection

	Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.), EPA
is charged with issuing certificates of conformity for motor vehicle
designs that comply with applicable emission standards set under section
202(a)(1) of the Act.  A manufacturer must have a certificate before
vehicles may be legally introduced into commerce.  To insure compliance
with the Act, EPA reviews product information and manufacturer test
results; EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm manufacturer results.

	Section 203 of the CAA contains “anti-tampering” provisions
prohibiting alteration of OEM vehicle components relevant to the
vehicle’s certification under the Act.  Regulations at 40 CFR, Part
85, Subpart F, provide exemption for aftermarket conversion systems from
these tampering prohibitions for those converters complying with the
regulations of that Part. Under Subpart F, these exemptions are
currently administered through a certification process that is modeled
on the OEM certification provisions: converters submit certification
requests for engine families, and those that satisfy EPA’s regulations
upon review are granted certificates of conformity for one model year.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	EPA uses certification information to verify that the proper engine
prototypes have been selected and that the necessary testing has been
performed to assure compliance with emission standards.

	EPA uses the information requested to support various enforcement
actions as mandated by the CAA.  This information collection enables EPA
to ensure that engine manufacturers are complying with applicable
emission regulations, measure the impact of nonroad engines' emissions
on air quality, and take corrective actions as needed.

	The information will be received and used by HDNEG/CISD/OTAQ/OAR.
Non-confidential portions of the information submitted to HDNEG is
available to and used by importers, environmental groups, members of the
public and local, state and federal government organizations.

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Nonduplication

	The information requested under this ICR is required by statute.
Because of its specialized (and sometimes confidential) nature, and the
fact that it must be submitted to EPA prior to the start of production,
the information collected is not available from any other source.

3(b) Public Notice Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	An announcement of the public comment period for this ICR renewal will
be published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2010.  This document may
be accessed through the Federal Register's website at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html"
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html .

3(c) Consultations

	The burden estimates described in this ICR is based on the HD
certification program burden already approved by OMB under ICR 1684.
EPA is currently seeking comment on these estimates through the FR
notice mentioned in Section 3(b).  EPA plans to seek comment on HD
conversions from various converters before this ICR is finalized.  The
final ICR will contain information about any comments received.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The CAA states that emission certification must be done on a yearly
basis (CAA 206(a)(1)), coinciding with the industry's 'model year.'
Major product changes typically occur at the start of a model year.  For
these reasons, a collection frequency of less than a model year is not
possible.  However, when an engine design is "carried over" to a
subsequent model year, the amount of new information required is
substantially reduced.

3(e) General Guidelines

	According to 40 CFR 86.098-7, certification related records must be
maintained for eight years.  Note that "records may be retained as hard
copy or reduced to microfilm, ADP film, etc., depending on the
manufacturer's record retention procedure, provided that in every case
all the information contained in the hard copy is retained."  These
recordkeeping requirements stem, in large part, from the statutory
requirement to warrant some items for long periods of time.  In
addition, the manufacturers must comply with requirements to recall
vehicles and engines failing to meet emission standards during their
useful lives.

	Manufacturers are required to submit confidential business information
such as sales projections and certain sensitive technical descriptions
(Please see section 4(b)(i) for reference).  This information is kept
confidential in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA
regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA's
Office of General Counsel.  Also, non-proprietary information submitted
by manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific vehicle or
engine to which it pertains is available for purchase.

	This information collection activity complies with the remaining
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5.  The proposal makes no changes in the
reporting and recordkeeping provisions that impact any of the guidelines
for information collections as approved in the existing approved
collection.

3(f) Confidentiality

	Manufacturers are allowed to assert a claim of confidentiality over
information provided to EPA.  Confidentiality is provided in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part
2.  For further detail, refer to section 3(e).

3(g) Sensitive Questions

	No sensitive questions are asked in this information collection.

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

	Respondents are manufacturers of non-road engines within the following
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:

336312 Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

	The information and reporting burden associated with this rule occurs
within the context of EPA’s motor vehicle and engine certification and
compliance programs.  Currently requested data items related to
heavy-duty engine certification are discussed in detail in ICR 1684.12.
Converters seeking certification for engines converted at the beginning
of their useful lives are expected to go through current certification
procedures.  However, under the proposed rule, the amount of information
collected from converters will be reduced due to the proposed provision
that will allow the grouping of multiple engine families into a larger
one.  Currently, engine manufacturers and converters must submit one
certification application per engine family, as currently defined in the
regulations.  Under the proposed rule, converters of beginning-of-useful
life engines will be able to obtain one certificate for a group of
engine families.  Engine families must share certain characteristics
before they can be combined into a larger family.  This provision may
reduce converters reporting burden by up to 50%.

Converters of intermediate age engines will be able to submit a
simplified testing demonstration without the burdens of the formal
certification application process. Since EPA will not issue a
certificate of conformity, intermediate age engine converters will also
benefit from not having to pay the certification fee currently required
under the authority of Section 217 of the CAA and the Independent
Offices Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C. 9701).

Converters of engines outside their useful life will also benefit from a
reduced burden.  EPA is currently seeking comment from the public on the
suitability of three proposed options to provide adequate demonstration
of compliance.

In general, reporting formats will describe the major aspects of the
proposed product line, technical details of the emission control
systems, and the results of any required tests to indicate compliance
with the emissions limitations.

	The following is a list of data items added or revised by the proposed
rule.  As mentioned above, ICR 1864.12 lists the rest of the data items
currently required for certification and that would apply to converters
of beginning-of-useful-life engines.

For all vehicles:

expanded  conversion test or "demonstration" groups

exemption from HCHO testing for conversions to CNG and LPG

conversion factors for calculating NMOG for conversions to CNG and LPG

new VECI label requirement describing test group, mileage, and date

For intermediate-age and outside useful-life age vehicles (25%)

online notification and test result report rather than application for
certification (savings in “paperwork” burden) or compliance
“demonstration” for outside useful-life conversions

description of OBD compliance strategy or OBD demonstration rather than
current OBD test results

Intermediate-age and outside useful-life engine families will not be
required to pay a certification fee.

(ii) Respondent Activities

	While there is no “typical” converter respondent, all converters
must submit a description of their product and test data to verify
compliance. As described in Section 4(b)(i), in some cases the proposal
would replace the current application and certification process with an
alternative, simpler process.  Converters of beginning-of-useful life
engines will carry-out the same activities as other engine manufacturers
currently seeking certification.

Section 5: The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

Agency Activities

	In general, EPA officials carry out the following activities:

Review and interpret regulations, provide guidance;

Review the applications for completeness and accuracy;

Verify that the correct engines have been selected and tested;

Verify compliance with applicable provisions;

Request additional information if needed;

Answer questions from manufacturers and the public;

Issue appropriate certificates of conformity, as applicable;

Periodically perform maintenance or enhance the database;

Make data available to the public;

Analyze and manage requests for confidentiality;

Determining if "carry over" of data from a previous model year is
appropriate or if new testing will be required; and

Store, file and maintain data.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

	EPA currently makes extensive use of electronic media in gathering and
evaluating information from engine manufacturers.  Manufacturers submit
Certification, ABT, PLT and SEA data in electronic formats.

	Once the data are received, the information is entered into a database
and reviewed for completeness.  If the manufacturer chooses to make hard
copy submittals, then EPA manually enters the information into the
database.  The certification reviewer analyses the information to ensure
compliance with the CAA and applicable regulations.

	The public can access non-confidential portions of the certification
applications and test data by contacting HDNEG or through the Engine
Certification Information Center at    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm .

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

	Small on-highway engine manufacturers may use optional procedures
outlined in 86.098 to demonstrate compliance with the general standards
and specific emission requirements.  These procedures, also available to
HD converters, apply to manufacturers with US sales of fewer than 10,000
units.  The alternate procedures reduce small manufacturers' burden
associated with durability data requirements, testing, determination of
deterioration factors and certification test data.  Converters may also
request EPA to assign deterioration factors, thus eliminating that
burden completely.

Small volume manufacturers are also exempt from some reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated to the certification of
evaporative families (86.098-22(m)).

	EPA can also approve a reduction in the certification application fee
upon request by the manufacturer.  A fee waiver could be granted if:
(1) the certificate is to be used to sell engines within the United
States; and (2) the full fee exceeds 1% of the aggregate projected
retail sales price of all vehicles covered by the certificate of
conformity.  Although this is a provision available to all
manufacturers, it is beneficial to some small manufacturers.  Section
6(b)(ii) provides more details.

5(d) Collection Schedule

	Collection of certification data (or demonstration data when
applicable) on a per engine family basis occurs on occasion.  Overall
collection frequency is largely determined by the converter's marketing
and product plans.  Information must be submitted for each 'model year'
that a converter intends to build engines and a certificate of
conformity must be obtained before the start of production.  Taking
these two considerations into account, manufacturers normally submit
information on an annual basis and submit their applications at their
earliest convenience.

	Running change and correction applications are submitted by
manufacturers as the need occurs.

Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden (Hours)

	Since the current process for certifying an engine family will remain
basically unchanged for converted families, burden estimates were taken
from the previous supporting statement in this ICR series. Costs have
been updated and reflect the impact of the new, broader definition of
engine family proposed by this rule. Tables 1 through 3 summarize the
respondents’ overall burden associated with this ICR.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

Estimating labor costs

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To estimate labor costs, EPA used the Bureau of
Labor Statistics' May 2008 industry specific occupational hourly wage
estimates for the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry (NAICS 336100).
EPA then increased the hourly wage estimates by a factor of 2.1 to
account for benefits and overhead.  The specific rates used are listed
below.  These are mean hourly rates.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 4

Labor Costs Estimates

Occupation	SOC Code Number	Mean Hourly Rate (BLS)	2.1 Factor for
Overhead and Benefits

Mechanical  Engineers	17-2141	$37.59 	$78.94

Engineering Managers	 11-9041	$54.56 	$114.58

Lawyers	23-1011	$67.14	$140.99

Secretaries, Except Legal, Medical and Executive	43-6014	$19.76 	$41.50

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

	The Operation and Maintenance costs (O&M Costs) in this ICR look
somewhat different from those explained in the rule preamble.  The
language in the preamble sought to explain all the costs a converter may
incur in its effort to obtain new exhaust emissions certification and
new evaporative emissions certification for its products. Since
manufacturers can “carry-over” test data from one model year to the
next, converters need to test their engine families only once unless
major changes are made to the engines. In this ICR, one time costs such
as testing have been annualized.

So far, all HD converters are small businesses.  EPA believes this will
still be the case after this rule is finalized.  Small businesses
contract outside laboratories to perform testing.  Therefore, there are
no capital start-up costs associated with this collection.

	EPA has estimated that testing at a private facility costs, on average,
$30,000.  Evaporative testing costs, on average, $7,050.  Testing cost,
however, is a one-time cost per engine family since manufacturers can
carry over emissions data from one model year to the next.  This cost
has been annualized over the approval period requested for this ICR (3
years).

Heavy-Duty and Large Nonroad CI:	$10,000

Evaporative testing:	  $2,350

	Converters of beginning-of-useful-life engines are required to pay a
fee every model year when submitting an application for a certificate of
conformity.  This fee is requested under the authority of the CAA
Section 217.  EPA published a revision to its 2010 schedule of fees in
the document CISD-09-05.  The relevant fees for calendar year 2010 are:

Federal Exhaust Certificate:	$35,967

Evaporative-only:			     $511

	The fees rule provides for a reduction in fee when "the full fee
exceeds 1.0 percent of the projected aggregate retail price of all
vehicles or engines covered by that certificate" (69 FR 26226, Section
F).  The reduced fee must not exceed one percent of the aggregate retail
price of the vehicles and engines covered by the certificate.

Since all respondents are small businesses and no laboratories will be
built or modified to comply with the new rule, there are no capital
start-up costs associated with this collection.

	Other O&M Costs associated with this information collection include
CDs, photocopying, postage and other shipping expenses, calls, and
testing costs.  CDs are used by manufacturers to submit their electronic
applications and to keep records.

(iii)  Start-up Costs

There are no capital start-up costs associated with the renewal of this
ICR.

(iv)  Annualizing capital costs

There are no capital start-up costs associated with this information
collection.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

	Table 5 summarizes EPA's overall additional burden associated with the
proposed rule.  Table 6 below summarizes EPA's labor.  These costs are
based on 2010 hourly wage rates obtained from the Office of Personnel
Management and adjusted by a factor of 1.6 to account for benefits and
overhead.

Table 6

Agency Labor Costs

Occupation	Hourly Rate	160%

Engineer (GS-13/10)	$55.46 	$88.74

Lawyers (GS-13/10)	$55.46 	$88.74

Managers (GS-15)	$65.23 	$104.37

SES-1	$99.00 	$158.40

Senior ( SEE Program)	$13.81 	$20.72 (see text below)

The salary of a senior from the Senior Environmental Employment (SEE)
Program for clerical support is $13.81 per hour plus approximately 150%
increase for benefits, for a total of $20.72.  EPA also pays $2,151.83
as an administrative fee to the Senior Services America, Inc., the
organization from which EPA’s SEE Employees are obtained. These data
were obtained from HDNEG’s financial officer.

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Interest in HD conversions has been low in the past.  In model year
2008, EPA received only seven applications for certification from a
total of four converters; while in 2009, only three of those converters
submitted one application each.  EPA understands that this is in part
due to converters not submitting an application until they find a market
for the engines. The amount of engines in a HD engine family is
typically lower than the amount of engines in a LD test group.  Since
the cost of certification is spread over a smaller pool of engines, it
is more expensive to certify a HD family on a per engine basis.  This
fact discourages many companies from seeking certification for
heavy-duty products.

Based on the experience of EPA certification reviewers, the Agency
estimates that interest in heavy-duty conversions certification may
double as a result of the proposed rule. This is due to the ability to
combine engine families into a larger group that could be certified as
one family with only one emissions test.  EPA estimates that eight
converters will seek certification for 12 converted heavy-duty engine
families (under the new, expanded definition) after the rule becomes
final.

	Since the process for demonstrating compliance with emission
requirements differ depending on the age of the engines being converted,
EPA has accounted for each stage separately.

Beginning-of-Useful-Life Engine Conversions

Converters of beginning-of-useful-life engines must seek full
certification. There are three distinct costs these converters will
incur in.

Exhaust emissions certification: Table 1 summarizes burden and costs for
exhaust certification of these families.

Evaporative emissions certification: Converters will also need to obtain
a certificate of conformity with evaporative emission requirements.
Table 2 summarizes costs and burden associated with evaporative
certification.

OBD compliance demonstration.

Currently, alternative fuel converters are required to submit test data
to demonstrate compliance with OBD regulations.  However, 40 CFR
86.010-18(o) provides exemptions for small volume and alternative fueled
engines used in applications over 14,000 lbs.  All HD converters who
have sought EPA certification in recent years have been able to claim
one of these exemptions.

In an effort to also reduce costs for those HD manufacturers who are not
able to claim this exemption, EPA is accepting through 2013 approval
issued by either the California Air Resource Board (CARB) or the EPA
Light-duty (LD) Certification Program as proof of compliance.
Manufacturers must demonstrate how the OBD system they have designed to
comply with California OBD requirements also complies with the intent of
federal requirements.  So far, HD manufacturers have been able to either
claim the exemption or submit approval from CARB or the LD Team.
Therefore, EPA does not have historical data to use as basis for OBD
demonstrations specifically related to HD conversions.

 Based on past experience with both HD engine and converted engine
certification, EPA estimates that all converters will be able to use one
the provisions described above to avoid the cost of HD OBD compliance
through the period covered by this ICR.  The cost of  LD OBD compliance
demonstration is already accounted for in ICR series 783.

If we needed to account for these costs now, EPA considers it
appropriate to adopt for HD, the estimates developed by the LD program
described in ICR 783.55: $26,317.

Intermediate age Engine Conversions

Under the proposed rule, converters of intermediate age engines will be
required to gather and submit all required data, including test data.
However, the proposed rule does not require EPA to issue a certificate
of conformity for intermediate age engines.  Instead, the Agency will
collect the data and audit it from time to time.  In addition, OBD
testing will not be required for intermediate conversions.  The
submission of the complete emissions data demonstrating compliance will
in itself cover the manufacturer from certain enforcement actions.
Since EPA will not issue a certificate of conformity, fees will not be
collected.

As a result, the cost of demonstrating compliance for intermediate age
engine conversions will be the same as for beginning-of-life engine
conversions with the exception of fees and OBD demonstration costs.
Table 3 shows these costs and burden.

EPA believes that there is little interest in intermediate age engine
conversions. Therefore, EPA has estimated that two manufacturers will
demonstrate compliance for one engine family each.

	iii. Outside-useful-life conversions

Burden and costs associated with demonstrating compliance for outside
useful life applications will depending on which option is selected in
the final rulemaking.

EPA would expect the maximum testing costs for Option #1 to be
equivalent to those costs incurred for intermediate age vehicle
compliance, since conducting all testing required for the intermediate
age engine program would always be an acceptable demonstration of good
engineering judgment.

Maximum testing costs for Option #2 would be double that of the
intermediate age engine program, since two sets of emissions test data
would be required.  However, the costs would still be less than the
baseline costs because no OBD demonstration testing would be required.

Maximum testing costs for Option #3 would be sum of the cost for Option
#1 and about $300.  An OBD scan tool with capabilities for printing via
a computer and printer can be acquired for less than $300.

Based on past experience, EPA does not expect to have any respondents
interested in outside-useful-life conversions.  Therefore, no burden is
allocated for these conversions in this ICR.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(i)  Respondent Tally

Table 6

Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary

Program (Age of Converted Engine)	Number of Respondents	Number of
Activities	Total Hours Per Year	Total Labor Cost Per Year	Total Annual
Capital Costs	Total Annual O&M Costs	Total Costs

Beginning-of-Useful Life	8	12	1,002	 $   86,279 	       -   	 $ 562,744
 $  649,023

Evaporative Cert	8	8	354	 $   29,177 	       -   	 $   34,408 	 $
63,585

Intermediate Age	2	11	219	 $   19,307 	       -   	 $   21,871 	 $
41,178

Outside Useful Life	              -   	             -   	              -
  	                -   	       -   	               -
-

Total:	8	31	1,575	 $  134,763 	       -   	 $ 619,023 	 $  753,786

(ii)  The Agency Tally

Table 7

Total Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary

Program (Age of Converted Engine)	Number of Respondents	Number of
Activities	Total Hours Per Year	Total Labor Cost Per Year	Total Annual
Capital Costs	Total Annual O&M Costs	Total Costs

All programs	8	12	3,101	 $     237,382 	 $        -   	 $          604
$     237,986

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

	The burden described in this ICR adds to the existing inventory for
this ICR series.  This increase is due to the expected increase in
respondents.

6(g) Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is, on average, 197 hours per respondent
(1,575 total hours/8 respondents).  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 are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the Air And Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is also (202)
566-1742.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299 and OMB Control Number 2060-0287 in any
correspondence.

 PAGE

 PAGE   15