[Federal Register: August 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 39315-39321]
[DOCID:fr06au09-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0430; FRL-8941-8]

Notice of Data Availability Concerning Compliance Supplement Pool
Allowance Allocations Under the Clean Air Interstate Rule Federal
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA).

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

SUMMARY: EPA is administering--under the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)--the CAIR NOX
Annual Trading Program Compliance Supplement Pool (CAIR CSP) for the
States of Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The CAIR FIPs require the Administrator to determine by order the CAIR
CSP allowance allocations for units in these States that requested and
qualify for these allocations and to provide the public with the
opportunity to object to the allocation determinations. In this Notice
of Data Availability (NODA), EPA is making available, to the public,
data and other information relating to the CAIR CSP allowance
allocations and denial of allocations to individual units whose owners
and operators requested such an allocation from EPA. The allocations
and denial of allocations are based on each unit's emissions data
reported to EPA in quarterly emissions reports submitted by the unit's
owners and operators under the CAIR trading program and other programs
and on EPA's interpretations of the regulation governing the allocation
of CAIR CSP allowances. The NODA presents the

emissions data and other information, including the CAIR CSP allowance
allocation calculations for each individual unit and the resulting
allocation for each unit.

DATES: Objections must be received by September 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your objections, identified by Docket Number OAR-
2009-0430 by one of the following methods:
    A. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. This NODA
is not a rulemaking, but you may use the Federal Rulemaking Portal to
submit objections to the NODA. To submit objections, follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Air Docket, ATTN: Docket Number OAR-2009-0430,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    C. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    D. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Room B102, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your objections to Docket ID No. OAR-2009-
0430. EPA's policy is that all objections received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information
provided, unless the objection includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your objection. If you send an e-mail objection directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the objection that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic objection, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your objection and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA is unable to read your
objection and contact you for clarification due to technical
difficulties, EPA may not be able to consider your objection.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, 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 http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m, Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this action
should be addressed to Robert L. Miller, EPA Headquarters, CAMD
(6204J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9077, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If mailing by
courier, address package to Robert L. Miller, 1310 L St., NW., Room
254B, Washington, DC 20005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline

1. General Information
2. What Is the Purpose of this NODA?
3. What Are the Requirements for Requesting and Receiving CAIR CSP
Allowances and the Procedures for Allocating Such Allowances?
4. How Is EPA Applying to Individual CAIR Units the Requirements for
Requesting and Receiving CAIR CSP Allowance Allocations?
5. How Do I Interpret the Data Made Available by This NODA?

1. General Information

    EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on May 12, 2005
(70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), in which EPA determined that 28 States
and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment
and interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour
ozone in downwind States in the eastern half of the country. As a
result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their state
implementation plans (SIPs) to include control measures that reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which is a precursor to
PM2.5, and/or nitrogen oxides (NOX), which is a
precursor to both ozone and PM2.5. Under CAIR, States may
implement these reduction requirements by participating in EPA-
administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs or by adopting any other
control measures.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by
CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule (71 FR 25328 (Apr. 28, 2006)). The CAIR FIPs
require electric generating units (EGUs) to participate in EPA-
administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs, as appropriate. These
trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and are
integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. Further, as
provided in a rule published by EPA on November 2, 2007, a State's CAIR
FIPs are automatically withdrawn when EPA approves a SIP revision, in
its entirety and without any conditions, as fully meeting the
requirements of CAIR. Where only portions of the SIP revision are
approved, the corresponding portions of the FIPs are automatically
withdrawn and the remaining portions of the FIP stay in place. Finally,
the CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions
that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement
certain CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating
NOX allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions. As a result of EPA's
approval of some States' CAIR-related SIP or abbreviated SIP
provisions, EPA is administering the CAIR CSP provisions in the CAIR
NOX annual trading program only for the States of Delaware,
Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the remaining
States are responsible for administering the CAIR CSP for their
respective CAIR units.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and
the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 836 (DC Cir. Jul. 11, 2008). However, in response to EPA's
petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA
without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). The Court thereby left CAIR in
place in order to

``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR'' until
EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at
1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with
its July 11, 2008 opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action. Id.
    This NODA provides data and other information concerning the
allocation of CAIR CSP allowances under Sec.  97.143 of the CAIR FIPs
for CAIR units in Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin. That rule requires that the Administrator determine by order
the CAIR CSP allowance allocations and provide an opportunity for the
public to submit objections.

Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This NODA applies to CAIR units in the States of Delaware,
Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin whose owners and
operators requested on or before May 1, 2009 a CAIR CSP allowance
allocation. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this NODA to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding section under ``for further information contact.''

What Should I Consider as I Prepare and Submit Any Objections for EPA?

    When preparing and submitting objections, remember to:
    (1) Identify the NODA by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    (2) Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize objections in a specific manner.
    (3) Make sure to submit your objections by the deadline identified.
    To expedite EPA's review, you are encouraged to send a separate
copy of your objections, in addition to the copy you submit to the
official docket, to Robert L. Miller, EPA Headquarters, CAMD (6204J),
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 and e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you e-mail the copy of your objections to
Mr. Miller, put ``objection for Docket Number OAR-2009-0430'' in the
subject line to alert Mr. Miller that an objection is included. If
mailing by courier, address package to Robert L. Miller, 1310 L St.,
NW., Room 254B, Washington, DC 20005.
    Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. Clearly mark any portion of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the objection that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the objection that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send
or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Robert L. Miller, EPA Headquarters, CAMD (6204J), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.

2 What Is the Purpose of This NODA?

    In this NODA, EPA is making available under the CAIR FIPs for
Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin the
following data and other information: (1) The list of each CAIR unit in
these States for which the owners and operators requested, and that
qualifies or does not quality for, allocation of CAIR CSP allowances,
(2) the data for each such unit from quarterly emission reports
submitted under EPA's monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping rules
applicable to trading programs (i.e., 40 CFR part 75) by the owners and
operators, and EPA's interpretations of Sec.  97.143, on which are
based the determination of each unit's qualification or failure to
qualify for a CAIR CSP allowance allocation and the calculation of the
amount of CAIR CSP allowances that each qualifying unit receives, (3)
the calculation, and resulting amount, of the CAIR CSP allowance
allocations for each qualifying unit; and (4) the basis for each
allocation or denial, in whole or in part, of an allocation for each
unit.
    The purpose of making the data available for objection is to ensure
that the data on which the applicable determinations for each unit are
based are correct. EPA is providing unit owners, unit operators, and
the public an opportunity to make objections to any of the data made
available in this NODA. Any person objecting to any of the data should
explain the basis for his or her objection, should provide alternative
data and supporting documentation, and explain why the alternative data
are the best available data. Supporting documentation can include, but
is not limited to, spreadsheets, explanations of why the data on such
spreadsheets are more accurate, and information on the data source. In
general, EPA does not anticipate revising a unit's NOX
emission rate and heat input data reported to EPA in quarterly
emissions reports in accordance with part 75 because, in submitting the
reports, the designated representative of the unit's owners and
operators certified the data's correctness, completeness, and
consistency with part 75 requirements. However, EPA will consider any
objections to the data.
    The provisions of Sec.  97.143--which govern the submission of
requests for CAIR CSP allowance allocations and set forth the criteria
for qualification for, and the methodologies for calculating, such
allocations for each individual unit--are final and are not being
reopened in this NODA. These provisions are described in this NODA
solely for informational purposes and are not open for objection.
However, EPA's interpretation of these rule provisions in applying them
to each unit requesting a CAIR CSP allowance allocation, and EPA's
reasons for allocating such allowances or denying such allocations are
open for objection, subject to the above-described limitation that the
provisions of Sec.  97.143 themselves are not a proper subject of
objection. See 40 CFR 97.143(d)(4) (explaining that objections must be
limited to whether EPA's determination of each unit's CAIR CSP
allowance allocations are in accordance with Sec.  97.143(b), (c), and
(d)(2) and (3)).

3. What Are the Requirements for Requesting and Receiving CAIR CSP
Allowances and the Procedures for Allocating Such Allowances?

    In the final CAIR FIPs, EPA adopted the CAIR NOX Annual
Trading Program as part of the Federal remedy for CAIR. The CAIR FIPs
established, for each State subject to CAIR with respect to annual
NOX emissions, an amount of CAIR NOX allowances--
comprising the amounts in the State NOX annual budget and
the State's share of the CAIR CSP--that EPA allocates to CAIR units in
the State. As explained in the preamble of the CAIR FIPs (71 FR at
25361-62), the CAIR CSP was established to provide allowances to units
subject to the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program to
incentivize early, annual NOX emissions reductions and to
prevent undue risk to the reliability of electricity supply due to
compliance with 2009 CAIR NOX annual emissions limitation.
The CAIR CSP comprises 200,000 vintage 2009 CAIR NOX
allowances for the entire CAIR region, apportioned to each State. EPA
is administering the allocation of the portions of the CAIR CSP for
Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland,

Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin,\1\ which are 843 allowances for Delaware,
2,251 allowances for Louisiana, 4,670 allowances for Maryland, 16,009
allowances for Pennsylvania, and 4,898 allowances for Wisconsin. Under
Sec.  97.143(b) and (c), the owners and operators of any unit for which
CAIR CSP allowances were sought had to submit to EPA a request for CAIR
CSP allowance allocations by May 1, 2009. The owners and operators of a
CAIR unit in these States could request a CAIR CSP allowance allocation
if (1) The unit made early NOX reductions in 2007 or 2008
(Sec.  97.143(b)) or (2) if the owners and operators demonstrated that
compliance with the CAIR NOX emissions limitation for 2009
would create an undue risk to the reliability of the electricity supply
during 2009 (Sec.  97.143(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted above, the remaining States covered by CAIR or the
CAIR FIPs are administering the allocation of their respective
portions of the CAIR CSP under their SIPs or abbreviated SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  97.143(b), the CAIR FIPs provide both the specific
criteria for determining whether a CAIR unit qualifies to receive a
CAIR CSP allowance allocation for early NOX reductions and
the methodology for determining the amount of early NOX
reductions and calculating the CAIR CSP allowance allocation based on
such reductions. To qualify for a CAIR CSP allowance allocation under
Sec.  97.143(b), a unit must meet three criteria. First, the unit must
have for each year (i.e., 2007 and/or 2008) for which the allocation is
sought, a NOX annual emission rate below 0.25 lb/mmBtu. In
addition, for any unit included in an Acid Rain Program NOX
averaging plan under Sec.  76.11, the weighted average annual
NOX emission rate for the group of units under such
averaging plan for the year for which the allocation is sought must be
at or below the weighted average annual group NOX emission
rate for the year preceding that year. Lastly, the unit must
demonstrate that it achieved a NOX emission reduction in
each year for which the allocation is sought.
    As EPA explained in the preamble of the CAIR FIPs (71 FR 25361),
the CSP under the CAIR FIP is modeled on the CSP in Sec.  96.143 of the
CAIR model trading rules. The preamble of the CAIR model trading rules
in turn explained that the CSP in the CAIR model trading rules was:

    patterned after the NOX SIP Call's CSP * * *
Similarities include: Limiting the total number of allowances that
can be distributed; limiting the years in which CSP allowances can
be earned; populating the CSP with allowances vintaged the first
compliance year; and using distribution criteria of early reductions
and need. 70 Fed. Reg. 25162, 25286 (May 12, 2005).

    Under the NOX SIP Call, as originally promulgated by
EPA, May 1, 2003 was the commencement date, and 2003 was the first
compliance year, of the NOX Budget Trading Program, which
covered ozone season (i.e., May 1-September 30) NOX
emissions, rather than annual NOX emissions. The
NOX SIP Call CSP was a pool of 200,000 allowances available
for each unit that ``reduce[d] its NOX emission rate in the
2001 or 2002 control period [i.e., ozone season]''. 40 CFR 96.55(c);
see also 40 CFR 51.123(e)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (requiring verification of
emissions reduction ``having occurred during an ozone season between
September 30, 1999 and May 1, 2003''). The unit was required to monitor
NOX emissions in accordance with the NOX Budget
Trading Program (generally involving the use of continuous emissions
monitoring systems in accordance with part 75) starting in the 2000
control period and thereafter. In order to qualify for NOX
SIP Call CSP allowances for 2001 or 2002 early reductions, the unit had
to have a NOX emission rate in the respective year of less
than 0.25 lb/mmBtu and less than 80% of the NOX emission
rate in 2000. 40 CFR 96.55(c)(1) and (3). In short, the requirement
that early reductions occurred in 2001 or 2002 meant that the unit had
to have an emission rate in 2001 or 2002 respectively that was less
than that unit's emission rate in the year preceding the required
period (2001-2002) for the early reductions, i.e., 2000. See 63 FR
57414 (explaining that monitored emissions data ``from the 2000 ozone
season shall be used to establish a baseline emission rate'' that the
unit's emission rate in 2001 or 2002 must be at least 20% below). The
NOX SIP Call CSP was also available for sources for which
compliance in 2003 would create ``undue risk for the reliability of the
electricity supply'' (40 CFR 51.121(e)(4)(iii)(B)(2)(i)) or comparable
undue risk for a non-electric generating source or its associated
industry (40 CFR 51.121(e)(4)(iii)(B)(2)(ii)).
    The requirements for qualifying for the CAIR CSP--which, as
discussed above, was patterned after the NOX SIP Call CSP--
are structured in a similar way to the NOX SIP Call CSP
qualification requirements. In particular, the first year for
compliance under the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program is
2009, and, in order to qualify for the CAIR CSP for early reductions, a
unit must ``achieve[ ] emissions reductions in 2007 and 2008.'' 40 CFR
97.143(b); see also 40 CFR 51.123(e)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (stating that
emission reductions must ``have occurred during 2007 and 2008'') and 40
CFR 96.143(b) (CAIR model trading rule provision requiring emission
reductions ``achieve[d] in 2007 and 2008''). Consistent with the
approach adopted for determining qualification for the NOX
SIP Call CSP, EPA interprets the CAIR CSP qualification requirement for
early reductions to mean that the unit must have an emission rate in
2007 or 2008 that is less than the unit's emission rate in the year
before 2007-2008, i.e., 2006. In short, the unit's emission rate in
2006 is used to establish the baseline emission rate for determining
whether the unit reduced its emission rate in 2007 or 2008. Thus, in
order to qualify for allocations from the CSP under the CAIR FIPs, a
unit must--in addition to meeting in 2007 or 2008 the above-described
requirements concerning the 0.25 lb/mmBtu ceiling on the annual
NOX emission rate and the weighted average group
NOX emission rate in any NOX averaging plan
covering the unit--have an annual NOX emission rate in 2007
or 2008 below the unit's 2006 annual NOX emission rate.
    Once EPA determines which individual units in a given State meet
these qualification requirements for receiving a CAIR CSP allowance
allocation under Sec.  97.143(b) for 2007 and/or 2008, EPA then
determines the amount of such allocation for each qualifying unit for
each of the applicable years. EPA calculates such allocation by:
multiplying the difference between 0.25 lb/mmBtu and the unit's annual
NOX emission rate (rounded to the nearest hundredth) for
such year by the annual heat input (in mmBtu) of the unit for such
year; dividing the results by 2,000 lb/ton; and rounding to the nearest
whole number of tons as appropriate.
    The CAIR FIPs, like the NOX SIP Call, provide a second
means of qualifying for CSP allowance allocations. Specifically, in
Sec.  97.143(c), the CAIR FIPs set forth specific criteria that a CAIR
unit must meet in order to qualify for a CAIR CSP allowance allocation
in order to prevent the unit's compliance for 2009 with CAIR
NOX emission limitation under the CAIR NOX Annual
Trading Program (i.e., the requirement to hold CAIR NOX
allowances covering annual NOX emissions) from creating
undue risk to the reliability of the electricity supply. A request for
CAIR CSP allowances under that provision must demonstrate that, without
the requested allowances, compliance for 2009 will result in such undue
risk. That demonstration must include a

showing that it would not be feasible for the unit's owners and
operators to obtain sufficient electricity from other electricity
generators during the installation of emission control technology at
the unit for compliance, or to obtain sufficient allowances, to avoid
undue risk. If EPA determines that any individual units qualify for
CAIR CSP allowances under the electric reliability criterion, EPA then
determines the minimum amount of CAIR CSP allowance that each such unit
needs to prevent undue risk. See 40 CFR 97.143(c)(1) (requiring request
be for ``minimum amount'' of allowances necessary to remove undue risk)
and 97.143(d)(1) (requiring EPA to adjust requests as necessary to make
the requested amounts comply with the requirements of Sec.  97.143(b)
and (c)).
    Finally, EPA makes any necessary adjustments under Sec.
97.143(d)(2) and (3) to the CAIR CSP allocations calculated under Sec.
97.143(b) and (c) in order to ensure that the total amount of CAIR CSP
allowances allocated to units in a given State does not exceed that
State's share of the CAIR CSP. If the sum of all of the calculated
allocations for units in a given State is less than that State's
portion of the CAIR CSP, then such units are allocated the full
calculated amount. If the sum of all of the calculated allocations for
units in a given State is greater than that State's portion of the CAIR
CSP, then each unit is allocated its proportionate share, i.e., the
calculated amount multiplied by the State's CAIR CSP portion divided by
the sum of the calculated amounts for all units in that State.
    Under Sec.  97.143(d)(4), by July 31, 2009, EPA must determine by
order the CAIR CSP allowance allocations in accordance with Sec.
97.143(d)(1) through (3) and:

make available to the public each determination of * * * [CAIR CSP
allowance allocations] and will provide an opportunity of submission
of objections to the determination. Objections shall be limited to
addressing whether the determination is in accordance with [Sec.
97.143(b), (c), and (d)(2) and (3)], as appropriate. Based on any
such objections [EPA] will adjust each determination to the extent
necessary to ensure that it is in accordance with such [rule
provisions]. 40 CFR 97.143(d)(4).

In this NODA, EPA is carrying out its responsibilities under Sec.
97.143(d)(4).

4. How Is EPA Applying to Individual CAIR Units the Requirements for
Requesting and Receiving CAIR CSP Allowance Allocations?

    On March 18, 2009, EPA sent an e-mail--to the designated
representatives, alternate designated representatives, and their
respective agents under the CAIR NOX allowance tracking
system for CAIR units in Delaware, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin--that provided instructions on the proper submission of a
CAIR CSP allowance allocation request.\2\ The March 18, 2009 e-mail
explained what data should be submitted with the request, depending on
whether the request was made pursuant to Sec.  97.143(b) or (c) and
reminded addressees of the May 1, 2009 deadline for such requests.
Among the data elements for a request under Sec.  97.143(b) were: the
annual NOX rate of the unit for years 2006, 2007, and 2008;
the annual heat input for years 2007 and 2008; data demonstrating that
the unit made NOX reductions in 2007 or 2008; and the
calculations showing the number of allowances that the unit was
entitled to receive under Sec.  97.143(b)(2). Among the data elements
for a request under Sec.  97.143(c) were: The calculation of the
minimum amount of allowances necessary to remove undue risk to
electricity supply reliability and a demonstration that the owners and
operators of the unit involved could not obtain sufficient electricity
from other electricity generators, or sufficient allowances, to prevent
such undue risk. Because most CAIR units have also been affected units
under the Acid Rain Program since at least 2000, EPA already had
access, through quarterly emissions reports submitted by the unit's
owners and operators in accordance with part 75 for 2006 through 2008,
to the emissions and other data needed to determine whether most of the
units qualified for CAIR CSP allowance allocations based on early
reductions and, if so, for how many allowances. Nevertheless, EPA
requested from owners and operators the data elements set forth in the
March 18, 2009 e-mail in order to ensure that there were no data errors
and that the owners and operators would know the maximum number of CAIR
CSP allowances the unit could expect to receive. In contrast to the
information necessary to allocate CAIR CSP allowances for early
reductions, the information necessary to allocate such allowances to
prevent undue risk to electricity supply reliability had not previously
been collected by EPA and, on its face, would reflect unit owners' and
operators' unique circumstances concerning the electricity supply
available to them and their customers and the owners' and operators'
access to allowances. EPA therefore required that the owners and
operators provide this information as part of any request for CAIR CSP
allowances to prevent undue risk to electricity supply reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On April 28, 2009, Maryland sent essentially the same e-mail
to the designated representatives, alternate designated
representatives, and their respective agents under the CAIR
NOX allowance tracking system for CAIR units in Maryland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received timely requests for CAIR CSP allowance allocations for
2007 and 2008 for about 60 CAIR units in Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.\3\ Many of the CAIR CSP allowance
allocation requests expressly stated that the owners and operators were
seeking allowances pursuant to Sec.  97.143(b). However, some requests
did not identify the provision under which CAIR CSP allowances were
being sought, but provided data that were only relevant to
qualification for such allowances under Sec.  97.143(b). Moreover,
while many of the requests provided all of the data needed, and
referenced in the March 18, 2009 e-mail, for determining qualification
for allowances under Sec.  97.143(b), some provided only a portion of
such data or provided incorrect data. Some requests either overstated
or understated the amount of allowances the unit involved was qualified
to receive. In many cases, those requests were based on emissions data
that differed from the EPA-accepted emissions values in the quarterly
emission reports submitted and certified by the designated
representatives of the owners and operators of the units under part 75,
and no explanation or justification supporting the use of the values
not certified under part 75 was provided. Consistent with the
requirements of Sec.  97.143(b) to use data provided in accordance with
part 75 and because the quarterly emissions report values had
previously been certified as correct, complete, and consistent with the
requirements (such as those for quality assurance) of part 75, EPA
maintains that such data are the correct data to use for purposes of
allocating CAIR CSP allowances. See 40 CFR 97.143(b)(1) (requiring a
unit to monitor and report NOX emissions during 2007-2008 in
accordance with subpart HH of the CAIR FIP NOX annual
trading program rules, which is based on, and references, 40 CFR part
75); and 40 CFR 75.64(c) (requiring certification statement in
quarterly emissions reports). In other cases, the requests reflected a
misunderstanding, or misapplication, of the CAIR CSP allocation
methodology

(which is summarized above) in Sec.  97.143(b). None of the requests
specifically referenced Sec.  97.143(c) or provided the information
needed, and referenced in the March 18, 2009 e-mail, for determining
qualification for allowances under that provision. Finally, in the case
of one company's units, the request did not reference either Sec.
97.143(b) or Sec.  97.143(c) as the basis for receiving CAIR CSP
allowances and instead requested such allowances on other grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA also received requests for units in Minnesota. Because
EPA recently proposed to stay the effectiveness of CAIR and the CAIR
FIPs to Minnesota and sources in that State, EPA is not addressing
here any requests concerning Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than denying any request that did not provide all the
necessary data, provided incorrect data, miscalculated the amount of
allowances for which the unit qualified, or failed to state expressly
that the request was being made under Sec.  97.143(b) or Sec.
97.143(c), EPA has decided to evaluate each unit for which a timely
request for CAIR CSP allowances on any grounds was submitted, determine
if that unit qualifies for allowances for early reductions under Sec.
97.143(b), and, if so, determine the maximum amount of allowances that
the unit can receive under that provision. EPA is taking this approach
because, for the reasons discussed above, EPA already has the necessary
data to make such determinations for every unit for which a timely
request was submitted, and therefore requesting owners and operators to
amend or correct their requests would unnecessarily delay completion of
the CAIR CSP allowance allocations.
    However, with regard to CAIR CSP allowance allocations to prevent
undue risk to electricity supply reliability under Sec.  97.143(c), EPA
does not have the information necessary to support a request for
allowances under that provision. As discussed above, this information
is not already available to EPA and involves circumstances unique to
the particular owners and operators involved. Consequently, EPA is
taking the approach of considering a unit's qualification for CAIR CSP
allowances under Sec.  97.143(c) only if the owners and operators of
the unit expressly request allowances under that provision. Because
none of the requests received by EPA referenced Sec.  97.143(c) as a
basis for the unit involved obtaining CAIR CSP allowances, much less
provided the necessary information to demonstrate qualification for
such allowances under that provision, EPA has determined that no CAIR
CSP allowances are being allocated under the provision.
    Applying the approaches discussed above, EPA evaluated each
individual unit for which the owners and operators submitted a request
for a CAIR CSP allowance allocation and determined whether the unit
qualified under Sec.  97.143(b) for such allowances and, if so,
calculated the maximum amount for which the unit qualified, reflecting
any adjustment necessary to ensure that the total amount of such
allowances allocated to the units in a given State would not exceed
that State's portion of the CAIR CSP. The detailed unit-by-unit data,
determinations, and calculations are set forth in a technical support
document, which is a single Excel spreadsheet titled ``CAIR FIP CSP
Allocations Data'' and is available on EPA's CAMD Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cair/csp and in the CAIR CSP Docket (Docket ID
No. OAR-2009-0430). The unit-by-unit allocations and denials of
allocations that are shown in the technical support document are
summarized below:
    For 2007:
    1. Each individual unit whose 2007 annual NOX emission
rate reported in accordance with part 75 was less than 0.25 lb/mmBtu
and less than the unit's 2006 annual NOX emission rate
reported in accordance with part 75 and whose NOX averaging
plan (if any) had a weighted average group NOX emission rate
for 2007 determined in accordance with part 75 that did not exceed the
plan's weighted average group NOX emission rate for 2006
reported in accordance with part 75 is allocated CAIR CSP allowances
calculated in accordance with Sec.  97.143(b) and (d). To the extent
the amount allocated is less than the amount requested for the unit,
EPA is denying, in part, the request, as well as providing an
allocation. In virtually all cases, the basis for such denials is that
the request was based on data not certified under part 75 for which no
supporting explanation or justification was provided or an
interpretation of Sec.  97.143(b) and (d) that was inconsistent with
the rule text or EPA's interpretation (set forth in this NODA) of the
rule text.
    2. Each individual unit whose 2007 annual NOX emission
rate reported in accordance with part 75 exceeded 0.25 lb/mmBtu or
exceeded the unit's 2006 annual NOX emission rate reported
in accordance with part 75 or whose NOX averaging plan (if
any) had a weighted average group NOX emission rate for 2007
determined in accordance with part 75 exceeded the plan's weighted
average group NOX emission rate for 2006 determined in
accordance with part 75 is not allocated any CAIR CSP allowances. For
each of these units, EPA is denying in full the requested allocation.
    For 2008:
    3. Each individual unit whose 2008 annual NOX emission
rate reported in accordance with part 75 was less than 0.25 lb/mmBtu
and less than the unit's 2006 annual NOX emission rate
reported in accordance with part 75 and whose NOX averaging
plan (if any) had a weighted average group NOX emission rate
for 2008 determined in accordance with part 75 that did not exceed the
plan's weighted average group NOX emission rate for 2007
reported in accordance with part 75 is allocated CAIR CSP allowances
calculated in accordance with Sec.  97.143(b) and (d). To the extent
the amount allocated is less than the amount requested for the unit,
EPA is denying, in part, the request, as well as providing an
allocation. In virtually all cases, the basis for such denials is that
the request was based on data not certified under part 75 for which no
supporting explanation or justification was provided or an
interpretation of Sec.  97.143(b) and (d) that was inconsistent with
the rule text or EPA's interpretation (set forth in this NODA) of the
rule text.
    4. Each individual unit whose 2008 annual NOX emission
rate reported in accordance with part 75 exceeded 0.25 lb/mmBtu or
exceeded the unit's 2006 annual NOX emission rate reported
in accordance with part 75 or whose NOX averaging plan (if
any) had a weighted average group NOX emission rate for 2008
determined in accordance with part 75 exceeded the plan's weighted
average group NOX emission rate for 2007 determined in
accordance with part 75 is not allocated any CAIR CSP allowances. For
each of these units, EPA is denying in full the requested allocation.
    For 2007 and 2008:
    5. In addition to the basis stated in paragraphs 1 through 4 above,
for allocating and for denying in full or in part a request for CAIR
CSP allowance allocations, there is an additional basis for denying in
full or in part the allocations for individual units covered by one
request for such allocations. In that request, a company requested that
each of its units in Louisiana be given a certain amount of CAIR CSP
allowances (exceeding the amount allocated for the unit by EPA in this
NODA) on the ground that these units were underallocated CAIR
NOX allowances and CAIR NOX ozone season
allowances. As noted by the company, EPA took the approach in CAIR of
establishing State NOX annual and NOX ozone
season budgets using, inter alia, the heat input for units in the State
and fuel factors that gave the greatest weight to heat input from coal,
less weight to heat input from oil, and the least weight to heat input
from natural gas. On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia determined that ``EPA's approach contravenes
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 921 and that
``the resulting state budgets were arbitrary and capricious'' (id.).
Subsequently, the Court remanded CAIR, without vacatur, on this and
several other issues ``so that EPA may remedy CAIR's flaws.'' North
Carolina, 550 F.3d at 1178. According to the company, revising the
State budgets and State allowance allocation methodologies to eliminate
the use of the fuel factors would result in the company's units in
Louisiana being allocated a total of 10,764 more CAIR NOX
annual allowances and 4,913 more CAIR NOX ozone season
allowances in 2009 under the CAIR trading programs. Entergy's April 30,
2009 Compliance Supplement Pool CAIR NOx Allowance Request at 1. In its
April 30, 2009 request for CAIR CSP allowance allocations, the company
requested that its units in Louisiana therefore be allocated ``from the
Compliance Supplement Pool'' 10,764 CAIR NOX annual
allowances and 4,913 CAIR NOX ozone season allowances.\4\
Entergy's April 30, 2009 Compliance Supplement Pool CAIR NOx Allowance
Request at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The company subsequently revised its calculations of
additional amounts of CAIR allowances its units would be allocated
as a result of eliminating the use of the fuel factors. These
revisions resulted in turn in revisions of the amount of CAIR CSP
allowances the company requested. See Entergy's July 13, 2009
Compliance Supplement Pool CAIR NOX Allowance Request by
Entergy companies (supplementing the company's April 30, 2009
request). The company also noted that the CAIR CSP does not include
any CAIR NOX ozone season allowances. The company
indicated that EPA should allocate additional CAIR NOX
allowances (apparently from the CAIR CSP) equal to the amount or the
value of the CAIR NOX ozone season allowances requested
by the company. See Entergy's July 13, 2009 Compliance Supplement
Pool CAIR NOX Allowance Request by Entergy companies
(supplementing the company's April 30, 2009 request). None of these
changes in the amounts of CAIR CSP allowances requested by the
company change the amounts of the CAIR CSP allowances allocated by
EPA for the company's individual units in Louisiana or affect the
basis for EPA's allocations and denials of allocations discussed in
this NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this request, the company did not reference Sec.  97.143(b) or
(c) or claim that its units should be given CAIR CSP allowances under
those provisions and provided only some of the information necessary to
apply Sec.  97.143(b) and none of the information necessary to apply
Sec.  97.143(c).\5\ In essence, the company requested that EPA allocate
CAIR CSP allowances on grounds that Sec.  97.143 does not allow to be
used for making such allocations. Nevertheless, for reasons discussed
above, EPA evaluated whether the company's units in Louisiana qualify
for CAIR CSP allowance allocations under grounds provided for in Sec.
97.143. Specifically, for the reasons discussed above, EPA is
determining in this NODA that the units can be allocated CAIR CSP
allowances to the extent the units qualify for allocations for early
reductions under Sec.  97.143(b). However, the amounts determined by
EPA for the company's individual units are less than the amounts
requested by the company, and, to the extent of the differences between
these amounts for each individual unit, EPA is denying in whole (with
regard to units for which EPA is allocating no CAIR CSP allowances) or
in part (with regard to units for which EPA is allocating some CAIR CSP
allowances) the company's request. In order to allocate the full,
requested amount of CAIR CSP allowances for any of the individual units
covered by the company's request, EPA would have to ignore, and
contravene, the requirements of the rule (Sec.  97.143) governing the
qualification of a unit for CAIR CSP allowance allocations and the
calculation of the amount of such allocations. For these reasons, EPA
denies in whole or in part (as applicable) the company's request for
CAIR CSP allowance allocations for each of the company's units in
Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The company's vague statement that it ``believes that
allowances may be in short supply at the end of 2009'' and so the
company should receive CAIR CSP allowances to ``help ensure there is
no disruption of service'' (Entergy's July 7, 2009 Compliance
Supplement Pool CAIR NOX Allowance Request by Entergy
Companies at 1 (supplementing the company's April 30, 2009 request))
does not provide any of the detailed information required in Sec.
97.143(c)(1) and (2) and is entirely unsupported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. How Do I Interpret the Data Made Available by This NODA?

    As discussed above, the detailed unit-by-unit data, determinations,
and calculations with respect to CAIR CSP allowance allocations and
denials of allocations are contained in a technical support document,
which is a single Excel spreadsheet titled ``CAIR FIP CSP Allocations
Data''.
    The Excel spreadsheet is divided into 4 worksheets. For each year
2007 and 2008, there are two worksheets: one addressing ``allocations''
of CAIR CSP allowances, i.e., the allocations for all individual units
receiving some allowances, whether the amount is less than,\6\ equals,
or exceeds the amount requested; and the other addressing ``denials of
allocations'' of CAIR CSP allowances, i.e., the denials for all
individual units receiving no allowances and so whose request is denied
in full. The CAIR CSP allocation and denial worksheets include: the
relevant data from units' quarterly emissions reports; column notes
providing the basis for allocations and denials of allocations under
Sec.  97.143(b) and (d); and notes at the bottom explaining any
adjustment, under Sec.  97.143(d), of each individual unit's CAIR CSP
allowance allocation to ensure that the total amount of CAIR CSP
allowance allocations do not exceed the relevant State's portion of the
CAIR CSP. The basis, provided in the technical support document, for
each allocation and each denial (in full or in part) of allocations is
summarized and supplemented in section 4 of this NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The requests of these units are being denied in part.

    Dated: July 31, 2009.
Brian McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-18861 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 59028-59030]
[DOCID:fr16no09-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A.,
Inc.'s (FUSA) petition for exemption of the Subaru Legacy vehicle line
in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption From the Theft Prevention
Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has determined
that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard
equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 22, 2009, FUSA
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Subaru Legacy vehicle
line, beginning with the 2011 model year. The petition has been filed
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for an entire vehicle line.

    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, FUSA
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Legacy
vehicle line. FUSA stated that all Subaru Legacy vehicles will be
equipped with a passive, transponder-based electronic immobilizer
device as standard equipment. FUSA stated that the antitheft system and
the immobilization features are designed and constructed within the
vehicle's Controller Area Network electrical architecture. Major
components of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, a
passive immobilizer system, a key ring antenna and an engine control
unit. System immobilization is automatically activated when the key is
removed from the vehicle's ignition switch, or after 30 seconds if the
ignition is simply moved to the off position and the key is not
removed. The device will also have a visible and audible alarm, and
panic mode feature. The alarm system will monitor door status and key
identification. Unauthorized opening of a door will activate the alarm
system causing sounding of the horn and flashing of the hazard lamps.
FUSA's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49
CFR 543.7 in that it meets the general requirements contained in 543.5
and the specific content requirements of 543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, FUSA
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, FUSA
conducted tests based on its own specified standards and provided a
list of information of the tests it conducted. FUSA believes that its
device is reliable and durable because the device complied with its own
specific requirements for each test. Additionally, FUSA stated that the
immobilization features are designed and constructed within the
vehicle's overall Controller Area Network Electrical Architecture.
Therefore, the antitheft system cannot be separated and controlled
independently of this network.
    FUSA stated that it believes that historically, NHTSA has seen a
decreasing theft rate trend when electronic immobilization has been
added to alarm systems. FUSA stated that it presently has immobilizer
systems on all of its product lines (Forester, Tribeca, Impreza,
Legacy, and Outback models) and it believes the data shows
immobilization has had a demonstrable effect in lowering its theft
rates. FUSA also noted that recent state-by-state theft results from
the National Insurance Crime Bureau reported that in only 5 of the 50
states listed in its results, did any Subaru vehicle appear in the top
10 list of stolen cars. Review of the theft rates published by the
agency through MY/CY also revealed that, while there is some variation,
the theft rates for Subaru vehicles have on average, remained below the
median theft rate of 3.5826.
    FUSA also provided a comparative table showing how its device is
similar to other manufacturer's devices that have already been granted
an exemption by NHTSA. In its comparison, FUSA makes note of Federal
Notices published by NHTSA in which manufacturers have stated that they
have seen reductions in theft due to the immobilization systems being
used. Specifically, FUSA notes claims by Ford Motor Company that its
1997 Mustangs with immobilizers saw a 70% reduction in theft compared
to its 1995 Mustangs without immobilizers. FUSA also noted its reliance
on theft rates published by the agency which showed that theft rates
were lower for Jeep Grand Cherokee immobilizer-equipped vehicles (model
year 1995 through 1998) compared to older parts-marked Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles (model year 1990 and 1991). FUSA stated that it
believes that these comparisons show that its device is no less
effective than those installed on lines for which the agency has
already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements. The
agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices in
other vehicles lines for which the agency has already granted
exemptions.
    Based on the evidence submitted by FUSA, the agency believes that
the antitheft device for the Legacy vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that FUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based
on the information FUSA provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full FUSA's
petition for exemption for the vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541,
appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If FUSA decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully
marked as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major
component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if FUSA wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend part 543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change to the components or design of
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer
contemplates making any

changes the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it
should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to
modify.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: November 6, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-27360 Filed 11-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15418-15419]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1818-029.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region
of Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5304.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2137-025; ER10-2124-022; ER10-2125-023; ER10-
2127-021; ER10-2128-022; ER10-2131-025; ER10-2132-022; ER10-2133-023;
ER10-2138-026; ER10-2139-026; ER10-2140-025; ER10-2141-025; ER10-2764-
022; ER11-3872-024; ER11-4044-027; ER11-4046-026; ER14-2187-019; ER15-
1873-014; ER18-471-008; ER18-472-008; ER18-1197-005; ER20-387-004;
ER20-388-004; ER20-956-003; ER20-2444-002; ER20-2445-002; ER21-258-002;
ER21-1838-001; ER21-2137-003; ER21-2715-001; ER21-2716-001; ER14-2799-
017.
    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Fairbanks Solar
Holdings LLC, Fairbanks Solar Energy Center LLC, IR Energy Management
LLC, Orangeville Energy Storage LLC, Todd Solar LLC, Prineville Solar
Energy LLC, Millican Solar Energy LLC, Thunderhead Wind Energy LLC,
Traverse Wind Energy Holdings LLC, Traverse Wind Energy LLC, Camilla
Solar Energy LLC, States Edge Wind I Holdings LLC, States Edge Wind I
LLC, Buckeye Wind Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Gratiot
County Wind II LLC, Gratiot County Wind LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC,
Vantage Wind Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy
IV LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Beech
Ridge Energy LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Willow Creek Energy LLC, Grand
Ridge Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Judith
Gap Energy LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Beech Ridge Energy LLC,
et al.
    Filed Date: 3/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220303-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-379-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency Response--Revisions to
Implement ELCC Methodology to be effective 2/15/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-772-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency Response--BSM Capacity
Accreditation Market Design to be effective 5/11/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5224.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-834-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency response OATT Revised
LGIP & SGIP Sections to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5259.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1277-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment M, Articles 5 and
8 and Attachment H, Section 1 to be effective 3/11/2022.

    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1278-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-03-11 Resource
Sufficiency Evaluation Enhancements to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1279-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA No. 6370; Queue
No. AC1-191 to be effective 2/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1285-000.
    Applicants: Front Range-Midway Solar Project, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Front Range-Midway
Solar Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1287-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2022-
03-14_SA 2773 ATC-Adams-Columbia 2nd Rev CFA to be effective 5/14/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1288-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2022-
03-14_SA 2798 ATC-City of Menasha 2nd Rev CFA to be effective 5/14/
2022.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1289-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2022-
03-14_SA 2806 ATC-City of Oconomowoc 2nd Rev CFA to be effective 5/14/
2022.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1290-000.
    Applicants: Maine Power Link, LLC.
    Description: Maine Power Link, LLC submits an Application for
Authority to Charge Negotiated Rates With Transmission Capacity Rights
on Its Proposed Transmission Project.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1291-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6369; Queue No. AE2-029 to be effective 2/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1292-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 6382; Queue No. AE1-061 to be effective 2/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220314-5190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1293-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Formula Rate Post-Retirement Benefits Other than
Pensions filing of Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5314.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/22.

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

    Dated: March 14, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05763 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19124-19127]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08281]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80483; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees at Section VIII

April 19, 2017.
    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 April 10, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Section VIII (NASDAQ PSX Fees) to provide an additional credit tier for
displayed quotes and orders on NASDAQ PSX (``PSX'') in securities that
are listed on exchanges other than The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') or the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide an additional
credit tier for displayed quotes and orders on PSX in securities listed
on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE (``Tape B securities'') that are
priced at $1 and above.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Tape C securities are those that are listed on the Exchange
[sic], Tape A securities are those that are listed on NYSE, and Tape
B securities are those that are listed on exchanges other than
Nasdaq or NYSE.
     The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
April 3, 2017 (SR-Phlx-2017-28). On April 10, 2017, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange provides two credits for providing
liquidity through PSX. First, the Exchange provides a credit for
displayed quotes and orders, with the amount of the credit determined
by the member's

Consolidated Volume in that month.\4\ Second, the Exchange provides a
credit for certain non-displayed orders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically, the Exchange provides a credit of $0.0031 per
share executed for Quotes/Orders entered by a member organization
that provides and accesses 0.35% or more of Consolidated Volume
during the month; $0.0029 per share executed for Quotes/Orders
entered by a member organization that provides and accesses 0.25% or
more of Consolidated Volume during the month; $0.0027 per share
executed for Quotes/Orders entered by a member organization that
provides and accesses 0.15% or more of Consolidated Volume during
the month; $0.0025 per share executed for Quotes/Orders entered by a
member organization that provides and accesses 0.05% or more of
Consolidated Volume during the month; and $0.0023 per share executed
for all other Quotes/Orders.
    \5\ Specifically, the Exchange provides a credit of $0.0023 per
share executed credit for all orders with midpoint pegging that
provide liquidity, and $0.0000 per share executed credit for other
non-displayed orders that provide liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to provide an additional credit tier for
displayed quotes and orders in Tape B securities on the Exchange.
Specifically, the Exchange will provide a credit of $0.0027 per share
executed for displayed Quotes/Orders entered in securities listed on
exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE by a member organization that (1)
provides a minimum of 1 million shares a day on average in securities
listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE and (2) doubles the daily
average share volume provided in securities that are listed on
exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE during the month versus the member
organization's daily average share volume provided in securities that
are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE in February 2017.\6\
This credit will only apply to securities that are priced at $1 or
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As an example, assume that a member had a daily average
share volume of 600,000 shares in Tape B securities in February
2017. If the member provided 1.2 million shares per day on average
in Tape B securities in April, the member would receive the rebate
for that month, since it had doubled its daily average share volume
in Tape B securities in comparison to its February Tape B volume,
and also exceeded the one million daily share average volume
requirement in Tape B securities in the month of April.
     If a member had a daily average share volume of 400,000 shares
in Tape B securities in February 2017, the member would have to
increase its average daily share volume by 2.5 times in order meet
the requirements of the proposed rebate, since doubling its February
average daily volume in Tape B securities would result in an average
daily volume of 800,000 shares, which would not satisfy the
requirement that the member provide a minimum of 1 million shares a
day on average in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq
and NYSE.
     A member that had a daily average share volume of 900,000
shares in Tape B securities in February 2017 would have to increase
its average daily volume in Tape B securities to 1.8 million shares
in order to qualify for the credit in a given month, since this
would satisfy the requirement that the member double its average
daily share volume in Tape B securities in the given month in
comparison to its February 2017 volume, in addition to adding at
least 1 million shares a day on average in Tape B securities in the
month in which eligibility for the credit is being assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a member had no activity in February 2017 in securities listed
on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE or became a member after
February 2017, its February 2017 daily average share volume in
securities that are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE would
be zero for purposes of determining that member's eligibility for the
credit in subsequent months.
    The Exchange believes this credit tier will incentivize members to
provide increased liquidity in Tape B securities on the Exchange,
thereby enhancing the Exchange's market quality in Tape B securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\10\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\11\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \11\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \12\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the additional credit tier is reasonable
because it is designed to incentivize members to provide increased
liquidity in Tape B securities on the Exchange, thereby enhancing the
Exchange's market quality in Tape B securities. The Exchange believes
that the amount of the credit ($0.0027 per share executed) is
proportionate to the requirements necessary to qualify for the credit,
and will act as an incentive to add liquidity in Tape B securities. The
Exchange notes that the amount of the credit is comparable to other
credits offered by the Exchange for adding displayed liquidity, which
range from $0.0023 to $0.0031 and impose comparable requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0027 per
share executed for displayed Quotes/Orders that are entered by a
member organization that provides and accesses 0.15% or more of
Consolidated Volume during the month. While that credit uses
percentage of Daily Volume, rather than a daily average share volume
measurement, the Exchange believes that the requirements are
nonetheless comparable.
     The Exchange also notes that Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. pays a
credit of $0.0027 for displayed orders that add liquidity in Tape B
securities where the member has an average daily added volume that
equals or exceeds 0.08% of Total Consolidated Volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide this credit tier
to displayed liquidity only, since displayed liquidity plays a
significant role in the price formation process, and should thus be
incentivized through a credit tier such as is being proposed here. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable to provide this credit tier to
Tape B securities that are priced at $1 or greater, because the
Exchange desires to increase its market share in Tape B securities, and
because securities priced at less than $1 are subject to a separate
pricing structure.

    The Exchange believes that using February 2017 as the basis for
determining eligibility for the credit tier is reasonable because that
month represents the most recent full month of trading for which the
Exchange has completed its assessment of members' activity on the
Exchange for purposes of assessing charges and credits, and because the
selection of a previous month as a baseline prevents members from
changing their behavior prospectively to influence their baseline, and
thus, their eligibility for the credit tier. The Exchange also notes
that other exchanges use prior months as benchmarks for assessing
transaction credits.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. pays a credit of
$0.0030 per share for adding displayed orders if the member
increases its share of total Consolidated Volume for adding
liquidity by 0.15% or more in comparison to its volume in April
2016, and if the member has an average daily added volume as a
percentage of total Consolidated Volume that equals or exceeds
0.20%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require a member to
both double its daily average share volume in Tape B securities in
comparison to its February 2017 volume and also provides a minimum of 1
million shares a day on average in Tape B securities for the month in
which eligibility for the credit is being assessed. Requiring that a
member double its daily average share volume in Tape B securities in
comparison to its February 2017 volume means that the member is
required to add volume in an amount which is meaningful to the member,
while requiring that the member provide a daily average share volume of
at least of 1 million shares a day in Tape B securities means that the
member is required to add volume in an amount which is meaningful to
the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that proposed credit tier is an equitable
allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
apply the same credit to all similarly situated members. The Exchange
notes that participation on the Exchange, and eligibility for the
credit tier, is voluntary, and that the proposed credit tier applies
equally to all members that qualify for it, e.g., the member doubles
its daily average share volume in Tape B securities in comparison to
its February 2017 level and provides a minimum of 1 million shares a
day on average in Tape B securities for the month in which eligibility
for the credit tier is being assessed. This way to receive an ongoing
credit is open to any member that elects to meet the volume
requirements in Tape B securities.
    The Exchange notes that it already offers other credits for adding
displayed liquidity that do not require the member to transact in Tape
B securities. In adopting this credit tier, the Exchange is providing
members with another way in which they may qualify for a credit on the
Exchange, while incentivizing members to add increased displayed
liquidity in Tape B securities, thereby enhancing the market quality on
the Exchange in those securities and benefitting all participants. The
Exchange notes that, given the requirement that a member double its
daily average share volume in Tape B securities in comparison to its
February 2017 level and provide a minimum of 1 million shares a day on
average in Tape B securities in the given month, a member may have to
more than double its daily average share volume in Tape B securities in
comparison to its February 2017 volume, or provide more than 1 million
shares a day on average in Tape B securities in the given month, in
order to be eligible for the credit tier. The Exchange believes that
this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
requirements to qualify for the credit tier apply to all members, and
because imposing both elements requires a member to add volume in an
amount which is meaningful to the member (by doubling its February 2017
average daily volume in Tape B securities) and to the Exchange
(providing a daily average share volume of at least of 1 million shares
a day in Tape B securities).

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable.
    In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its
fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response,
and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee and
credit changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed credit tier does not impose a burden
on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely
voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other
exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The new credit tier is
consistent with transaction credits currently assessed by the Exchange
and by other exchanges. The new credit tier applies equally to all
members that meet the volume requirements, and all similarly situated
members are equally capable of qualifying for the credit if they choose
to meet the volume requirements. Finally, the purpose of the credit is
to incentivize members to add displayed liquidity to the Exchange in
Tape B securities. The Exchange believes this will create greater
liquidity in those securities on the Exchange, which will potentially
attract additional participants to the Exchange and thereby promote
competition.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2017-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-31 and should be
submitted on or before May 16, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08281 Filed 4-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED RULE TO IMPLEMENT THE 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD HOLIDAY INN SELECT 480 KING STREET ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2003 2 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS A hearing was held in the above entitled matter at the Holiday Inn Select, 480 King Street, Alexandria,

Virginia, in the Carlyle 1 Meeting Room, before Thomas Helms, John Silvasi and Jan Tierney, the Panel, taken by Maureen S. Bennie, Court Reporter, beginning at 8: 33 a. m.,

and proceeded as follows: 3 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 C O N T E N T S DESCRIPTION PAGE Opening comments by Thomas Helms 6 Testimony of Ann Weeks 13 Testimony of Norman Fickthorn 20 Testimony of Stephen Harper 25, 31 Testimony of Everett ( Brownie) Carson 26 Testimony of Erica Frank 33 Testimony of Scott Gollwitzer 36 Testimony of Michael Meyer 38 Testimony of Anthony Dorsey 40 Testimony of Illai Kenney 41 Testimony of Michael Replogle 44 Testimony of Jane Bright 51 Testimony of John Wilson 55 Testimony of Arthur Stamoulis 65 Testimony of John Kearney 69 Testimony of Stephanie Sanchez 74 Testimony of Phil Compton 81 Testimony of Charles Kleekamp 84 Testimony of Kathryn Kleekamp 88 Testimony of Frank O'Donnell 93 Testimony of James Brooks 96 4 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 CONTENTS ( CONTINUED)

DESCRIPTION PAGE Testimony of Melissa Ladd 102 Testimony of Christopher Recchia 105 Testimony of A. Blakeman Early 111 Testimony of Katy Hubener 118 Testimony of Mark Mitchell 123 Testimony of Colleen Kiernan 128 Testimony of Jill Stephens 131 Testimony of Valerie True 135 Testimony of John Stanton 139 Testimony of Andy Bauer 145 Testimony of Joanna Schnurman 149 Testimony of Zachary Corrigan 152 Testimony of Jennifer Hicks 161 Testimony of Pamela Irwin 165 Testimony of Roger Diedrich 167 Testimony of Jason Babbie 170 Testimony of Nathaniel Mund 175 Testimony of Stephen Smith 180 Testimony of Ulla Reeves 186 Testimony of Ronald Bert 190 Testimony of Brooke Suter 191 5 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 CONTENTS ( continued)


[Federal Register: August 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 45752-45753]
[DOCID:fr06au08-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM06-22-003]

Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure
Protection; Notice of Filing

July 31, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 30, 2008, The North American Electric
Reliability Corporation filed a supplemental filing to include
Violation Risk Factors for nine requirements or sub-requirements in the
Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards CIP-002-1
through CIP-009-1 that have been approved by the Commission, pursuant
to the directives in paragraphs 751 and 757 of the Commission's January
18, 2008, Order No. 706.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 19, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18010 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 93680-93681]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-12-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc..
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: CMD SOC effective
10-27-2016 Amendment to be effective 10/27/2016; Filing Type: 1000.
    Filed Date: 12/13/2016.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>28.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/17.

    Docket Number: PR17-13-000.
    Applicants: Jefferson Island Storage & Hub, L.L.C.
    Description: Market Power Study Reaffirming Market-Based Rates.
    Filed Date: 12/8/2016.
    Accession Number: 20161208-5175.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-253-000.

    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate PAL Agreement
with MIECO INC. to be effective 12/10/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161209-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-255-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Flowthrough Crediting
Mechanism Filing on 12/12/16.
    Filed Date: 12/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20161212-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-256-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing Gas Quality Settlement.
    Filed Date: 12/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161213-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-257-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2016-12-2 Capacity
Enhancement Amend Many Ks to be effective 12/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161213-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-258-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing Gulf Shore Energy Partners--Cost and
Revenue Study.
    Filed Date: 12/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161213-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-259-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Occidental
Energy to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161213-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-260-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Piedmont
Release to Atmos--8944225 to be effective 12/9/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161213-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

    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 Sec.  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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-200-001.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Docket No. RP17-200-000
to be effective 12/31/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20161212-5208.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-71-001.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing AGT FRQ 2016 Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 12/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20161212-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

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

    Dated: December 14, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30677 Filed 12-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 28583]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-1303-000]

Utility Bid USA, LLC: Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Utility Bid USA, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is May 29, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 9, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11543 Filed 5-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P