			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 20, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2004-17828

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant(s):  Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise			Date Filed:  May 13, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to the extent
necessary to permit Ethiopian Airlines to operate one one-way scheduled
flight transporting persons, property and mail over the routing Seattle,
Washington-Washington, D.C.-Rome, Italy-Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on June
4, 2004.  Ethiopian proposes to place Seattle-Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
passengers on its regularly-scheduled Washington, D.C. (IAD)-Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia flight.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  Michael F. Goldman<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  May 20, 2004

(We acted on Ethiopian’s request in less than the full 15-day period
for filing answers with the consent of all parties served)

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 20, 2004-June 7, 2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Reciprocity with
Ethiopia

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Special conditions/Part grant/Denial basis/Remarks.  Under the authority
granted above, Ethiopian Airlines is not authorized to carry local
traffic between Seattle and Washington, D.C. (IAD).

Ethiopian Airlines holds Department exemption authority, most recently
renewed on February 4, 2004, in Dockets OST-98-4345 and OST-98-3726, to
conduct scheduled combination services between Washington, D.C. (IAD)
and Newark New Jersey, on the one hand, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on
the other hand, via Rome, Italy.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

													05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57063-57066]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0812]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Emerald Isle, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to extend a temporary safety zone on
the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Emerald Isle, North
Carolina. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
mariners on navigable waters during maintenance of the NC 58 Fixed
Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at
Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The safety zone extension would
temporarily restrict vessel movement within the designated area
starting on December 12, 2012 through February 14, 2013.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email CWO4 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0812) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0432) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    This proposed rule would extend an existing safety zone in the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Emerald Isle. The Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the existing safety zone
on June 15, 2012 (USCG-2012-0432, 77 FR 35906), no comments were
received and we published a final rule on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44463).

C. Basis and Purpose

    North Carolina Department of Transportation has contracted Marine
Contracting Corporation of Virginia Beach, Virginia to perform bridge
maintenance on the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The
contract provides for replacement of the fender system to commence on
September 12, 2012 with a completion date of December 12, 2012. The
contractor has been granted an extension by North Carolina Department
of Transportation until February 14, 2013 to complete the bridge
maintenance. The contractor will utilize a 140 foot deck barge with a
40 foot beam as a work platform and for equipment staging. The existing
safety zone needs to be extended to provide a safety buffer for
transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to
mariners and property due to reduction of horizontal clearance.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed temporary safety zone will encompass the waters
directly under the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina
(34[deg]40'28'' N, 077[deg]03'56'' W). This initial zone is in effect
from 8 a.m. September 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. December 12, 2012. The
proposed extension will be in effect from 8 p.m. December 12, 2012
through 8 p.m. February 14, 2013. During this period the Coast Guard
would require a one hour notification to the work supervisor at NC 58
Fixed Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway crossing, mile 226,
Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The notification requirement would apply
during the maintenance period for vessels requiring a horizontal
clearance of greater than 50 feet.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does restrict
traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway; it imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is
clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal
clearance of greater than 50 feet.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities,
some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of
commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing
vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway from 8 p.m. December 12, 2012 through 8 p.m.
February 14, 2013.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone will apply to this section of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage
by providing a one hour advanced notification. Before the effective
period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available
to the users of the waterway. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this

proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0812 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0812  Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Emerald Isle, NC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: This zone
includes the waters directly under and 100 yards either side of the NC
58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226,
at Emerald Isle, North Carolina (latitude 34[deg]40'28'' N, longitude
077[deg]03'56'' W).
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05-0432. In addition the following regulations apply:
    (1) All vessels requiring greater than 50 feet horizontal clearance
to safely transit through the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina must
contact the work supervisor on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and
16 one hour in advance of intended transit.
    (2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be
contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
    (3) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity
of this safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a
Coast Guard Ensign, and
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer

on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
    (c) Definitions.
    (1) Captain of the Port North Carolina means the Commander, Coast
Guard Sector North Carolina or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act
on his behalf.
    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port North Carolina to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) Work Supervisor means the contractors on site representative.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal,
State and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from through
8 p.m. December 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. February 14, 2013 unless
cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: August 30, 2012.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2012-22798 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 62911-62913]
[DOCID:fr13oc10-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63044; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-042]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Relating to FINRA Rule 4160 (Verification of Assets)

October 5, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On August 4, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change that provides that a member, when
notified by FINRA, may not continue to custody or retain record
ownership of assets, at a non-member financial institution, which, upon
FINRA staff's request, fails promptly to provide FINRA with written
verification of assets maintained by the member at such financial
institutions. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on August 11, 2010.\3\ The Commission received one
comment on the proposed rule change.\4\ On October 1, 2010, FINRA
responded to the comments and filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice and order to
solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 and to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62655 (August 5,
2010), 75 FR 48731 (August 11, 2010).
    \4\ See Letter from Howard Spindel, Senior Managing Director,
and Cassondra E. Joseph, Managing Director, Integrated Management
Solutions USA LLC, dated August 30, 2010 (``IMS letter'').
    \5\ See Amendment No. 1 dated October 1, 2010 (``Amendment No.
1''). The text of Amendment No. 1 is available on FINRA's Web site
at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, and on
the Commission's Web site, http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    FINRA has proposed to adopt FINRA Rule 4160 (Verification of
Assets). The proposed rule provides that a member, when notified by
FINRA, may not continue to custody or retain record ownership of
assets, at a non-member financial institution, which, upon FINRA
staff's request, fails promptly to provide FINRA with written
verification of assets maintained by the member at such financial
institution. The proposed rule change also would add a supplementary
material section to the new rule.
    FINRA proposes new paragraph (b) in its Amendment No. 1. Paragraph
(b)(1) expressly excludes from the rule proprietary assets of members
that are treated as non-allowable assets pursuant to Rule 15c3-1 under
the Act. Paragraph (b)(2) provides that the rule would not apply in
instances where FINRA determines that there is no other available
independent custody or record ownership of the assets. Amendment No. 1
would also designate the original rule text as paragraph (a). Finally,
the Supplementary Material remains unchanged by Amendment No. 1.
    The text of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1, is below. Proposed new language is underlined.
* * * * *

4000. FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL RULES

4100. FINANCIAL CONDITION

* * * * *

4160. Verification of Assets

    (a) A member, when notified by FINRA, may not continue to custody
or retain record ownership of assets, whether such assets are
proprietary or

customer assets, at a financial institution that is not a member of
FINRA, which, upon FINRA staff's request, fails promptly to provide
FINRA with written verification of assets maintained by the member at
such financial institution.
    (b) The Rule shall not apply:
    (1) to proprietary assets of members that are treated as non-
allowable assets under SEA Rule 15c3-1; or
    (2) in instances where FINRA determines that there is no
independent custody or record ownership of the assets.

   Supplementary Material:

    .01 Asset Transfers. Any member required to transfer its
proprietary and/or customer assets pursuant to this Rule shall effect
such transfer within a reasonable period of time.
    .02 Member Obligations Under SEA Rule 15c3-3. Nothing in this Rule
shall be construed as altering in any manner a member's obligations
under SEA Rule 15c3-3.
* * * * *

III. Summary of Comment Letters and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received one comment to the proposed rule change.\6\
The commenter opposed the proposal and asserted that the harm
outweighed any benefit of the proposed rule. Specifically, the
commenter indicated that certain assets are hard to verify and that the
proposed rule failed to differentiate among different types of
assets.\7\ The commenter suggested, among other things, that FINRA not
apply the rule to proprietary assets that are not allowable for net
capital purposes. The commenter further raised concerns that the
proposed rule would create an unwarranted burden on members, because it
fails to address instances where a particular asset cannot be relocated
from its country of origin or readily moved to another financial
institution.\8\ Additionally, the commenter asserted that the rule
``indirectly extends the extraterritorial application of the U.S.
securities laws,'' and that compliance with the rule may violate
foreign law. Finally, the commenter believed that instead of adopting
the proposed rule, FINRA should look at other asset verification
options and suggested the alternatives of conducting a study regarding
the necessity of the proposed rule or establishing a separate bureau
that would verify customers' statements against the books and records
of their broker-dealers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ IMS letter.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 and responded to the comments.
Amendment No. 1 specifically addresses the commenter's suggestion that
the rule should not apply to proprietary assets of members that are not
allowable for net capital purposes. Accordingly, FINRA is proposing new
paragraph (b)(1) of the rule, which would expressly exclude from the
rule proprietary assets of members that are treated as non-allowable
assets pursuant to Rule 15c3-1 of the Act. Moreover, in response to the
commenter's concerns regarding the application of the proposed rule to
assets that cannot be relocated to another financial institution, such
as many limited partnership or hedge fund investments, FINRA is
proposing new paragraph (b)(2) of the rule, which provides that the
rule would not apply in instances where FINRA determines that there is
no independent custody or record ownership of the assets.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposal, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, the comments, and FINRA's response, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a
national securities association.\10\ In particular, the Commission
finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\11\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest. The proposed rule change is consistent with
FINRA's statutory obligations under the Act to protect investors and
the public interest because it would enhance FINRA's ability to verify
assets at a financial institution which is not a member of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA adequately addressed the
concerns raised by the commenter. The rule language in Amendment No. 1
specifically excludes proprietary assets that are not allowable for net
capital purposes. It also adequately addresses the commenter's concerns
regarding the application of the proposed rule to assets that cannot be
relocated to another financial institution, by adding paragraph (b)(2)
of the rule clarifies that the rule would not apply in instances where
FINRA determines that there is no other independent custody or record
ownership of the assets. The Commission believes the proposed rule, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, further strengthens FINRA's ability to
effectively detect fraud and protect investors.

V. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act \12\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, prior to the 30th day after publication of
Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. The changes proposed in
Amendment No. 1 respond to specific concerns raised by the commenter
and do not raise novel regulatory concerns. In particular, Amendment
No. 1 further clarifies the scope of the asset verification rule, which
serves to protect the capital structure of members and to safeguard the
custody of customer assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists to approve
the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2010-042 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-FINRA-2010-042. This file number should be included on the subject
line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process

and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method.
The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web
site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,
all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions.
    You should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-042
and should be submitted on or before November 3, 2010.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2010-042), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25623 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 70)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18428-18434]
[DOCID:fr12ap07-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002-200623; FRL-8298-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Alabama:
Proposed Approval of Revisions to the Visible Emissions Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Visible Emissions portion of
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted to EPA, by the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), on September 11,
2003 (the ``2003 ADEM submittal''), provided it is revised as described
in this action and submitted as a SIP revision. The open burning
portion of the submittal was previously approved in a separate action
on March 9, 2006 (71 FR 12138).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2005-AL-0002, by one of the following methods:
    (a) http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    (b) E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (c) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002,'' Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    (e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,
61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-AL-0002.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

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

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

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

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic 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 Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
II. Why Is EPA Proposing This Action?
III. What Is the Rationale for This SIP Revision?
IV. What Does the Visible Emissions Rule in the Current SIP Require,
and What Changes Are Requested by ADEM?
V. What Changes Does EPA Recommend to the Submittal?
VI. What Technical Analysis Was Used To Support Approval of This SIP
Revision?
VII. What Happens Next?
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing an approval, under Section 110(k) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), of the Visible Emissions portion of the Alabama SIP revision
submitted on September 11, 2003. This proposed approval is contingent
upon Alabama submitting a revised SIP submission addressing EPA's
concerns regarding impacts of the rule changes on attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Because the necessary
revisions would materially alter both the existing SIP approved rule
and the submitted revision, the State must make a SIP submittal to
effect the changes noted by EPA below. As with any SIP revision, the
State must provide public notice of and a public hearing on the
proposed changes. If, after consideration of public comments, EPA
determines the revised SIP submission meets the requirements of the CAA
and is consistent with the recommended changes outlined in this action,
the Agency may proceed to publish its approval of the revised SIP in
the Federal Register. Alabama's revised submittal must be consistent
with the changes discussed in this action for EPA to approve its
incorporation into the SIP. If the revised language does not conform
specifically to the recommended changes, EPA will need to re-evaluate
Alabama's submittal and, if the changes are approvable, re-propose
approval of the SIP submittal.

II. Why Is EPA Proposing This Action?

    EPA is taking this action in response to a request from ADEM to
revise the Visible Emissions portion of Alabama's SIP rule pertaining
to sources of particulate matter (PM) emissions. The request, submitted
to EPA on September 11, 2003, would revise Alabama SIP rule 335-3-4-.01
(``Visible Emissions'') by amending the requirements for units

that operate continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) and that are
not subject to any opacity limits other than those in rule 335-3-
4-.01(1) (``Visible Emissions Restrictions for Stationary Sources'').
    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA may not approve revisions to
SIPs if the revisions would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP), or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA. In determining whether to
approve a requested revision, EPA considers the relevant impacts of the
proposed change in light of the type of requirement affected by the
requested revision. In this instance, the State is proposing revisions
to its opacity requirements. We define opacity as the degree to which
emissions reduce the transmission of light and obscure the view of an
object in the background. (See 40 CFR 60.2).
    A change in opacity standards may not necessarily impact on a
State's ability to meet the PM NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the Act because, as discussed further in this action, a
reliable and direct correlation between opacity and PM emissions cannot
be established without significant site-specific simultaneous testing
of both PM emissions and opacity, particularly for short-term periods
(e.g., 24 hours or less). Nonetheless, because there is at least an
indirect relationship between opacity and PM emissions, including the
use of opacity to track the effectiveness of PM control equipment
operation, we considered the impact of Alabama's proposed revision on
the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5, and on other applicable requirements. No
changes are being proposed to revise the particulate mass limits in the
Alabama SIP, and sources must continue to meet applicable emissions
limits. EPA proposes to approve Alabama's revision, with our
recommended changes, because we determined that, with the changes
specified in this action, the SIP revision will not interfere with
attainment of either of the PM NAAQS or with other applicable
requirements.

III. What Is the Rationale for This SIP Revision?

    Monitoring opacity by use of COMS provides far more data than EPA
Reference Method 9, the compliance determination method specified by
most SIPs, including Alabama's. Alabama adopted into the State's
regulations the rule revision contained in the 2003 ADEM submittal on
August 26, 2003, and has since operated under it as a State-only
enforceable provision. The purpose of that rule revision was to make
the State's regulation consistent with what had been its practice in
exercising enforcement discretion with respect to use of COMS data
since the early 1980's.
    In addition to requiring corrective actions and prompt reporting of
deviations from permit terms, the State has other oversight procedures
in place that ensure long, continuous periods of high opacity are
properly addressed by the source. ADEM receives quarterly emissions
reports from plants that utilize COMS, which indicate the opacity of
the emissions from sources subject to this rule revision. ADEM reviews
the information and determines if further action should be taken due to
any opacity exceedances. The data is required to be in a format that
includes source operating time, monitor operating time, exempt opacity
exceedances, and non-exempt opacity exceedances. The reports include
daily opacity exceedances as well as a summary of the data for the
entire quarter. In these reports, the sources also calculate the
percentage of operating time in which they had non-exempt opacity
exceedances as well as the percentage of operating time with any (total
of exempt and non-exempt) opacity exceedances.
    ADEM has developed a program that takes the summary data from the
quarterly opacity reports and calculates the percentage of source
operating time that the opacity of emissions from individual units (or
multiple units with a common stack) exceeded the opacity standard due
to non-exempt reasons during the calendar quarter. As a check on the
quarterly calculations from the source, this program also calculates
the percentage of operating time that the opacity of emissions from
individual units exceeded the opacity standard for any reason. With
this program, ADEM compares the performance of each unit to the
historical performance of that unit as well as compares it to the
performance of the other units at that plant and other similar plants
in the State, and the performance of the unit to the two percent
threshold in the Alabama submittal. If the performance of a unit is not
consistent with its historical performance or the performance of other
similar units in the State, ADEM can review the daily exceedances of
the opacity standard for the unit in question to determine if the
exceedances were sporadic, or grouped in consecutive hours or
consecutive days. ADEM may also ask the company for a detailed
explanation of the exceedances (or a subset of exceedances) during the
calendar quarter. If, for a source subject to the new standard, the
number of unexcused opacity exceedances is in excess of two percent of
the source operating time for which the opacity standard was applicable
during the quarter, formal enforcement action may proceed.
    Opacity limitations have typically accompanied periodic Reference
Method 5 particulate matter compliance tests (Method 5 tests) in SIPs.
That is, where Method 5 tests are used to demonstrate compliance with
filterable PM mass emission limitations, opacity limits and associated
monitoring are commonly used as an indirect monitor for PM emissions
and as indicators of good PM control equipment operation during the
periods between Method 5 tests. EPA has long recognized opacity
monitoring as a method of ensuring proper control device operation. See
39 FR 9308, 9309 (Mar. 8, 1974) (NSPS Additions and Miscellaneous
Amendments discussing opacity as an indicator of whether control
equipment is properly maintained and operated).
    With use of continuous opacity monitors it is possible to have a
continuous stream of opacity data. This results in the collection of
many individual, short-term opacity measurements that reflect the full
range of control device operating variability and, depending upon the
amount of variability, may or may not be indicative of poor operation
of control equipment and excess PM emissions. For example, coal-fired
power generation facilities may experience sporadic opacity exceedances
caused by variations in the constituents of coal burned. The revised
Alabama rule shifts emphasis from isolated six-minute periods to longer
periods that are more indicative of excess PM emissions and problems
with operation and maintenance of control devices. As noted above,
under the proposed revised rule, with the changes discussed in this
action, an emissions unit is allowed: (1) Up to 100 percent opacity
during periods of startup, shutdown, load change, and rate change or
other short, intermittent periods upon terms approved by ADEM's
Director and included in a state-issued permit; (2) up to 100 percent
opacity for up to two percent of the operating time on a quarterly
basis (less the exempted periods approved by ADEM's Director and
included in a state-issued permit), for no more than 10 percent of the
time on a daily basis; and (3) up to 20 percent opacity for the rest of
the time in a quarter. EPA believes this approach, along with the
monitoring and oversight safeguards discussed above, make appropriate
use of COMS data for ensuring compliance with PM limits.

IV. What Does the Visible Emissions Rule in the Current SIP Require,
and What Changes Are Requested by ADEM?

    The subject Visible Emissions rule is in Chapter 335-3-4 (``Control
of Particulate Emissions'') of the Alabama SIP. The currently approved
Alabama Rule 335-3-4-.01, ``Visible Emissions,'' has a generally
applicable limit of 20 percent on opacity level and provides that one
six-minute period per hour of up to 40 percent opacity is exempted \1\
from the 20 percent limit. The Director of ADEM may also grant, as part
of a permit issued by the State, exemptions to the 20 percent limit
during startup, shutdown, load change and rate change or other short,
intermittent periods that are in addition to the hourly six-minute 40
percent exemption. These exemptions are provided by subparagraphs
(1)(b) and (1)(c), respectively. Additional exemptions for
circumstances not relevant to this rulemaking are provided by
subparagraphs (1)(d) \2\ and (1)(e).\3\ The text of the current rule
reads, in relevant part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alabama Rule 335-3-4-.01, ``Visible Emissions,'' provides
four specific ``exceptions'' to compliance with the generally
applicable opacity limit at subparagraphs 335-3-4-.01(b), (c), (d),
and (e). To be consistent with more common terminology, in this
notice we refer to these as ``exemptions.''
    \2\ Subparagraph (d) provides that ADEM's Director may approve
exceptions to this Rule in the form of source-specific adjustments
to the opacity standard, provided certain conditions are met
demonstrating to the Director's satisfaction that, with the
adjustment, the source would continue to comply with its SIP
particulate matter mass emissions limit.
    \3\ Subparagraph (e) provides that the provisions of this Rule
do not apply to combustion sources in single-family and duplex
dwellings where such sources are used for heating or other domestic
purposes.

    (1) Visible Emissions Restrictions for Stationary Sources.
    (a) Except as provided in subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of
this paragraph, no person shall discharge into the atmosphere from
any source of emission, particulate of an opacity greater than that
designated as twenty percent (20%) opacity, as determined by a six
(6) minute average.
    (b) During one six (6) minute period in any sixty (60) minute
period, a person may discharge into the atmosphere from any source
of emission, particulate of an opacity not greater than that
designated as forty percent (40%) opacity.
    (c) The Director may approve exceptions to this Rule or specific
sources which hold permits under Chapter 335-3-14; provided however,
such exceptions may be made for startup, shutdown, load change, and
rate change or other short, intermittent periods of time upon terms
approved by the Director and made a part of such permit.
* * * * *
    (2) Compliance with opacity standards in this Rule shall be
determined by conducting observations in accordance with Reference
Method 9 in Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60, as the same may be amended
requiring a six (6) minute average as determined by twenty-four (24)
consecutive readings, at intervals of fifteen (15) seconds each.

    The 2003 ADEM submittal would add three new paragraphs, (3), (4),
and (5), to Alabama Rule 335-3-4-.01 that apply only to those emissions
units that use COMS for measuring opacity, that operate such systems
according to Federal specifications, and that are subject only to those
opacity limits of the State's SIP (e.g., not subject to opacity limits
under any preconstruction permit or other regulation). The revision
provides that these units will not be in violation of the State's
generally applicable opacity limitation if the non-exempt excess
emissions periods do not exceed two percent of the source operating
hours for which the opacity standard is applicable and for which the
COMS is indicating valid data, on a quarterly basis. The text of the
proposed change reads as follows:

    (3) The conditions in paragraph (4) of this Rule apply to each
emissions unit that meets all of the following requirements:
    (a) A Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) is used for
indication of opacity of emissions;
    (b) With respect to opacity limitations, the units are subject
only to the opacity provisions stated in paragraph (1) of this Rule;
and
    (c) The COMS system utilized is required to comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR 60.13 or 40 CFR 75.14 (if applicable) and is
required to be certified in accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 1.
    (4) During each calendar quarter, the permittee will not be
deemed in violation of Rule 335-3-4-.01(1) if the non-exempt excess
emissions periods do not exceed 2.0 percent of the source operating
hours for which the opacity standard is applicable and for which the
COMS is indicating valid data.
    (5) Nothing in paragraph (4) of this Rule shall be construed to
supercede the validity of opacity readings taken under paragraph (2)
of this Rule.

    In summary, under the 2003 submission, sources operating COMS would
not be deemed in violation of the standard where emissions in excess of
the 20 percent opacity were limited to: (1) One six-minute average per
hour of up to 40 percent opacity; (2) periods of startup, shutdown,
load change and rate change or other short intermittent periods upon
terms approved by ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued
permit; and (3) no more than two percent of the remaining operating
time after subtracting out all periods qualifying under the previous
two instances.

V. What Changes Does EPA Recommend to the Submittal?

    As described above, under the Alabama SIP, Method 9 is the method
specified for determining compliance with the 20 percent opacity limit.
COMS are not specified as the method to determine compliance with the
numerical opacity limit, although COMS data can be credible evidence of
opacity. Opacity, both as measured by Method 9 and COMS, has been used
as a proxy for particulate emissions and to indicate whether a company
is following good air pollution control practices. ADEM has proposed
amending its SIP to allow up to two percent of COMS readings to exceed
20 percent opacity during non-exempt periods, in part since the Alabama
SIP provides no other exemption from the standard for malfunction.
    The use of COMS increases data availability and provides a greater
degree of reliability compared to the Method 9 procedure. Nonetheless,
as currently written, the revision would allow a source to emit at a
higher allowable average opacity percent level (as measured by COMS in
six-minute increments) on a quarterly basis as well as allowing higher
short term excursions than the current approved SIP allows. Because
this potential for higher average opacity on a quarterly basis could
indicate an increase in particulate matter emissions, and in the
absence of a supporting demonstration of compliance with CAA
requirements from the State, we believe that the 2003 SIP submittal is
not approvable as submitted. The submission is also not clear about
whether the new opacity standard for certain sources with COMS at 335-
3-4-.01(3)-(5) applies in addition to, or in lieu of, the existing
opacity standard in paragraphs 335-3-4-.01(1)(a)-(b), as measured under
paragraph 335-3-4-.01(2). In addition, the purpose behind new paragraph
335-3-4-.01(5) is not clear.
    EPA believes the State can revise the 2003 ADEM submittal by
amending it to ensure that the allowable average quarterly opacity is
at least as stringent as (i.e., equal to or lower than) that allowed by
the current approved SIP, and by being clear that only a single version
of the standard applies to any unit (although any credible evidence of
opacity could be used to assess compliance with the applicable version
of the standard). Accordingly, this proposed approval is contingent
upon Alabama's submission of a revised rule with certain changes. The
revision

would clearly indicate that a unit is covered by either the existing
opacity standard at paragraphs 335-3-4-.01(1)(a)-(b), as measured under
paragraph 335-3-4-.01(2), or by the new standard established in
paragraphs 335-3-4-.01(1)(a), (3)-(4), as measured by the COMS
referenced in those paragraphs--but not both.\4\ The revision would
also provide that the hourly 40 percent exemption under Alabama rule
335-3-4-.01(1)(b) does not apply to sources subject to the new
paragraphs 335-3-4-.01(3) and 335-3-4-.01(4). Thus, the 40 percent
exemption for up to 24 six-minute periods per day on an hourly basis
would be replaced by the generally applicable 20 percent standard. The
revision would allow a source to exceed the 20 percent standard (up to
100 percent opacity) during no more than 24 six-minute periods per day.
In part this revision would replace the existing provision allowing one
six-minute exceedance per hour at 40 percent opacity with a provision
allowing up to 24 six-minute exceedances per calendar day at 100
percent opacity. However, under the revised provision, these
exceedances would be part of, not in addition to, the exceedances
allowed under 335-3-4-.01(4) (i.e., two percent of operating time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted elsewhere, the exemptions in paragraphs 335-3-
4-.01(1)(c)-(e) are not impacted by the 2003 SIP revision and would
continue to apply to either the existing or the revised standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, under the current SIP, a source is required to maintain 20
percent opacity, except that it may emit at up to 40 percent opacity
for one six-minute average per hour, and may have emissions of up to
100 percent opacity as specified in a permit. Under the 2003
submission, certain sources using COMS would, in addition to the
current SIP exemptions, also be allowed emissions of up to 100 percent
opacity for up to two percent of the quarterly operating time that they
are otherwise subject to the 20 percent opacity limit. Under the
revision proposed for approval in this notice, these sources still
would be allowed emissions of up to 100 percent opacity for up to two
percent of quarterly operating time that they are subject to the 20
percent opacity limit (but not to exceed 10 percent of a calendar day),
and they would not be allowed the 40 percent hourly exemption.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although this new opacity standard would only apply to
certain sources using COMS, EPA notes that, consistent with EPA's
and ADEM's credible evidence rules, nothing in the rule should
preclude the use of COMS to enforce the existing standard or the use
of Method 9 to enforce the new standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where currently any source may exceed the opacity limit for six
minutes out of every hour (i.e., 10 percent of the time, on an hourly
basis), under the revision EPA is proposing would be approvable, a
source using COMS subject to the new standard could exceed the opacity
limit for 10 percent of the time on a daily basis (i.e., up to 2.4
hours of consecutive opacity exceedances per calendar day), but for
only two percent of the time on a quarterly basis. Under the current
standard, the 40 percent opacity limit in theory allows a source to
emit a total of approximately 219 hours of emissions in a quarter at up
to 40 percent opacity, if the source uses one six-minute exemption for
every hour of operation. Under the proposed revision, a source would be
allowed to emit no more than 44 hours of excess emissions in a quarter
(and no more than 2.4 hours in a day), but those emissions could have
up to 100 percent opacity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The director's discretion provisions under Alabama rule 335-
3-4-.01(1)(c) and (d) would be unchanged by this SIP revision, so
periods of excess emissions allowed in a permit pursuant to those
provisions would continue to be allowed, in addition to the
emissions allowed by the new provisions discussed herein. EPA notes
that, as the director's discretion provisions are not being revised
by ADEM or reviewed by EPA at present, nothing in this notice should
be considered as approving those provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the final rule would have the potential to increase
the impact of opacity exceedances on a short-term basis by allowing
exceedances of up to 100 percent opacity and also allowing those
periods of excess opacity to be aggregated in up to 24 consecutive six-
minute periods per day (as opposed to the current approved rule which
provides an hourly 40 percent exemption, also for a total of 24 six-
minute periods per day). However, the long-term cap of two percent
serves to restrict the total amount of time a source is allowed to
exceed the standard. As discussed below, EPA believes that the
reduction in total duration of exceedances will reduce average opacity
as compared to the current standard, even taking into consideration
that the exemption in the current standard limits exceedances to 40
percent (not 100 percent) opacity.
    Thus, under the proposed revised rule, with the changes discussed
in this notice, an emissions unit covered by the new standard would be
allowed: (1) Up to 100 percent opacity during periods of startup,
shutdown, load change, and rate change or other short, intermittent
periods upon terms approved by ADEM's Director and included in a state-
issued permit; (2) up to 100 percent opacity for up to two percent of
the operating time on a quarterly basis (where the amount of operating
time does not include the exempted periods approved by ADEM's Director
and included in a state-issued permit), but for no more than ten
percent of the time on a daily basis; and (3) up to 20 percent opacity
for the rest of the time in a quarter. The current federally-approved
SIP opacity limit remains in effect. Any new exceptions proposed in
this action do not take effect until EPA takes final action.
Furthermore, any final rule would be prospective only. In addition,
this proposal is not intended to affect on-going enforcement actions
against sources that may be subject to the new standard, nor does it
relieve affected sources in Alabama of their obligations to comply with
any other federal, state, or local opacity requirements, or particulate
matter control requirements.

VI. What Technical Analysis Was Used To Support Approval of This SIP
Revision?

    The existing Alabama SIP specifies Method 9 as the method for
determining compliance with the generally applicable opacity limit for
sources of PM emissions. See Ala. Admin. Code r. 335-3-4-.01(2). More
frequent readings with COMS help determine whether a source is
following good air pollution control practices between Method 9 or
Method 5 tests. With the additional restrictions described above, the
proposed SIP revision can be shown to be no less stringent in terms of
average quarterly opacity than the existing SIP.
    Today, we propose to approve Alabama's SIP revision contingent upon
the revision including our recommended changes, based on a finding that
the revision would not increase average quarterly opacity levels and
thus would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS,
RFP, or any other requirement of the Act. The relationship between
changes in opacity and increases or decreases in ambient
PM2.5 levels cannot be quantified readily and is
particularly uncertain for short term and site-specific analyses. There
are several contributors to this uncertainty including (1) differences
between combustion technology characteristics and fuel components, (2)
differences in control technology types, temperatures at which they
operate, and load characteristics, (3) the recognition that both
opacity and mass emissions are subject to significant variability over
short periods of time and fluctuations in one may not track
fluctuations in the other, and (4) differences between what the ambient
sampler collects and the mass of particles that exists at the point

of COMS measurement (e.g., in the stack) and the direct
PM2.5 that forms immediately upon exiting the stack (that
are related to fuel components more than to control technology).
    In addition to these uncertainty factors, opacity is directly
related to particle size, with particles of an aerodynamic diameter of
approximately 1.0 micrometer having the greatest potential for
impairment of visibility, or increased opacity. (See, e.g., Malm,
William C. ``Introduction to Visibility,'' Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Atmosphere, May 1999, Chap. 2, p. 8). As particles
increase in size, their impact on opacity diminishes, despite the fact
that their mass may increase. Thus for PM emissions of a given mass
level, opacity can be greater or less depending on the particle size
distribution.
    Several past instances and State and Federal rules are instructive
regarding the uncertainties in relating opacity to PM concentrations.
EPA recognized and accounted for these uncertainties as early as the
1970s by permitting sources to adjust source-specific opacity standards
under new source performance standards (NSPS) when they could
demonstrate that they were in compliance with applicable PM limits at
times when opacity limits were being exceeded. See, e.g., 44 FR 37960,
37961 (June 29, 1979). In EPA's own NSPS for glass manufacturing
plants, (40 CFR 60.293(e)), and national emission standard for
Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR
61.163), EPA has written specific provisions into its standards
permitting source owners or operators to redetermine opacity
limitations where they can demonstrate compliance with emission limits
in the applicable rules. More recently, when examining a study of COMS
at a portland cement kiln, we have found that the plant's visible
emissions readings were consistently below its allowable limit (20
percent) while PM emissions significantly exceeded the NSPS due to
broken bags in its baghouse. Finally, a number of States have
incorporated similar provisions into their regulations. (See, e.g.,
Indiana Administrative Code, 326 IAC 5-1-5(b); Wisconsin NR 431.07;
Pima County, Arizona 2-8-300(C)).
    The contributions to uncertainty described above lessen when
applied to longer term averages and the relationship between ambient
PM2.5 measurements and changes in opacity are more reliable
than for shorter term (e.g., daily) assessments. Therefore, for
purposes of this proposal, EPA focused on analyzing the effects of the
proposed change in the opacity limitations for facilities covered by
the rule over quarterly periods. EPA believes that a quarterly basis is
appropriate because correlations between opacity and PM control device
operation are more readily generalized over a longer-term basis and,
therefore, a quarterly average is more likely to reflect impacts on the
ambient PM levels accurately than a daily average, and because ADEM's
proposed rule includes a quarterly limit. By calculating and comparing
the average quarterly opacities allowed by the current SIP approved
rule, the 2003 ADEM submittal, and the 2003 ADEM submittal with
required changes specified, we can determine which proposed SIP change,
if any, provides an average quarterly opacity equivalent with, or more
stringent than, the average quarterly opacity allowed by the current
SIP approved rule. Proposed changes that provide average quarterly
opacities more stringent than (or equivalent with) those allowed by the
existing SIP rule are expected to be more stringent than (or equivalent
to) the existing SIP rule.
    EPA is not performing similar calculations comparing stringency of
average daily opacity levels under the current rule and the proposed
rule because a generally applicable relationship between opacity and PM
mass emissions cannot be specified over short averaging times (e.g., 24
hours or less). Even with extensive testing, it is very difficult to
establish reliable correlations between the magnitude of opacity
measurements and PM mass emissions for short averaging times (e.g., 24
hours or less) that will remain reliable over a longer period of record
(i.e., that will establish a direct daily correlation over a longer
period, such as three or more months). Therefore, opacity may not be a
reliable indicator of short-term emissions, or for use in projecting
changes in short-term PM ambient air quality concentrations.
Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed change in the allowed
opacity will have no effect on attainment of the 24-hour PM NAAQS (35
[mu]g/m3 for PM2.5 and 150 [mu]mg/m3
for PM10) or (based on the quarterly stringency comparison)
the annual PM NAAQS (15.0 [mu]g/m for PM2.5).
    We can calculate the average allowable quarterly opacity for a unit
by multiplying an allowed level of opacity by the duration for which
that level of opacity is allowed, summing those products for each
allowed level of opacity occurring over a quarter, and then dividing
that total by the number of six-minute periods in a quarter. The
average quarterly opacity for a unit is an opacity value equivalent
with one single, constant opacity value emitted for each and every six-
minute period of the quarter, allowing us to compare a unit with a
longer period of lower opacity to one with a shorter period of higher
opacity.
    The general formula for calculating the allowable average quarterly
opacity (i.e., the average opacity (percent) allowed by rule over a
quarter) is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP07.010

Where:
n = specific period of quarterly operation,
opacity = opacity (percent) related to that specific period,
duration = number of six-minute average periods related to the
specific period, and
21,900 = number of six-minute average periods per quarter.

    For the Alabama analysis, using the above general formula to
determine the allowable average opacity over a quarter, we chose to use
the maximum opacity allowed for each condition, the maximum duration
allowed for each condition, and the maximum amount of time for unit
operation when calculating the average allowable quarterly opacity.
Although operation with opacity at the maximum level for the longest
period allowed under a rule is not reflective of actual operations,
such a conservative assumption provides a consistent basis for
comparisons.
    Usually calculation of allowable average quarterly opacity can be
readily ascertained, since opacity limits and their associated
condition durations are known explicitly. However, because ADEM allows
an exemption from opacity limits during periods of startup, shutdown,
load change and rate change or other short, intermittent periods upon

terms approved by ADEM's Director and included in a state-issued
permit, and because the duration of those periods is not known, we used
a variable, T1, to represent the duration of those periods.
In theory, the duration of those periods could range from 0, meaning no
periods of exemption for a quarter, to 21,900, meaning all periods of
the quarter are exempt.\7\ In practice, one sample of units subject to
the current SIP rule contains durations of about 400 periods per
quarter for this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA does not intend to indicate that it would be appropriate
or consistent with the SIP for an exemption period under 335-3-
4.01(1)(c) to last for an extended period of time, but rather is
utilizing conservative assumptions for the purpose of ensuring the
requirements of section 110(l) will be met. EPA does not anticipate
that a source would, in fact, operate at 100% opacity for all
permissible excursion periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relying on the variable T1, calculation of allowable
average quarterly opacities becomes straightforward. By way of example,
the allowable average quarterly opacity for the 2003 ADEM Submittal is
the sum of the ten percent of the quarter's duration at 40 percent
opacity, the time (T1) at 100 percent opacity due to
exemptions, the two percent of the non-exempt time of the quarter's
duration at 100 percent opacity, and the balance of the non-exempt time
of the quarter's duration at 20 percent opacity, all divided by the
number of six-minute periods in the quarter. The equation shown below
provides the allowable average quarterly opacity for the 2003 ADEM
Submittal for T1 values of 0 to 19,710:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP07.011

    We derived allowable average quarterly opacity equations for the
current SIP-approved rule and the 2003 ADEM submittal, substituted
various exemption durations (T1) in the equations,
determined the corresponding allowable average quarterly opacities, and
organized the results as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1.--Calculated Allowable Average Quarterly Opacity Levels, for Various Startup, Shutdown, Load Change, and
       Rate Change Durations (T1), Using Alabama's Current SIP-Approved Rule, and the 2003 ADEM Submittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Calculated allowable average quarterly opacity (percent) for various
                                            startup, shutdown, load change and rate change durations (T1)
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       T1 = 0     T1 = 1,000  T1 = 10,000  T1 = 17,520  T1 = 19,710  T1 = 21,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current SIP Approved Rule.........        22.00        25.65        58.53        86.00        94.00       100.00
2003 ADEM Submittal...............        23.44        27.02        59.24        86.16        94.00       100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen, under these conservative assumptions, the 2003 ADEM
submittal would result in allowable average quarterly opacity levels
that are slightly higher than those calculated from the current SIP
rule for periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate change,
i.e. for where those durations are less than 19,710 six-minute
averages.
    In order to be approvable, we have recommended that ADEM eliminate
the exemption for six-minutes at up to 40 percent opacity for up to ten
percent of the operating time. The allowable average quarterly opacity
for the 2003 ADEM Submittal With Required Changes Specified for all
T1 values =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP07.012

    We derived allowable average quarterly opacity equations for the
current SIP approved rule and the 2003 ADEM submittal with recommended
changes specified, substituted various exemption durations
(T1) in the equations, determined the corresponding
allowable average quarterly opacities, and organized the results as
shown in Table 2 below. As shown, the proposed revision to the SIP rule
yields an allowable average quarterly opacity equivalent to or less
than the allowable average quarterly opacity calculated from the
current SIP rule in all cases.

Table 2.--Calculated Allowable Average Quarterly Opacity Levels, for Various Startup, Shutdown, Load Change, and
    Rate Change Durations (T1), Using Alabama's Current SIP-Approved Rule and the Proposed SIP Revision With
                                          Recommended Changes Specified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Calculated allowable average quarterly opacity (percent) for various
                                            startup, shutdown, load change and rate change durations (T1)
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       T1 = 0     T1 = 1,000  T1 = 10,000  T1 = 17,520  T1 = 19,710  T1 = 21,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current SIP Approved Rule.........        22.00        25.65        58.53        86.00        94.00       100.00
2003 ADEM Submittal with                  21.60        25.18        57.40        84.32        92.16       100.00
 Recommended Changes Specified....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, by incorporating these recommended changes, Alabama
would reduce uncertainties related to whether such a change could
interfere with attainment, RFP or any other requirement of the Act.
Accordingly, we conclude that the revision of Alabama's SIP rule to
incorporate the 2003 ADEM submittal with our recommended changes
specified in this action would not interfere with requirements of the
CAA and would be approvable. Further details of this analysis are
contained in the technical support document.

VII. What Happens Next?

    EPA anticipates Alabama will submit a revised rule revision
reflecting the changes discussed in section IV above. If Alabama's
revised rule is submitted and considered approvable, after considering
any comments received on today's proposed approval, EPA will publish a
final rule in the Federal Register approving the State's requested rule
revision and will also address in that rulemaking any comments received
on this proposed approval. In addition, we plan to develop further
criteria to aid EPA Regional Offices in evaluating future revisions to
rules such as Alabama's and, in this regard, we expect to publish in
the near future a request for information that will assist us in that
effort.

VIII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Visible Emissions portion of a SIP
revision submitted to EPA by Alabama on September 11, 2003, provided it
is revised as described in section IV of this action and submitted as a
SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-
4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely proposes to approve State rule as consistent with Federal
standards, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 4, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-6948 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 75003]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-425-000]

Copper Mountain Solar 5, 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
Copper Mountain Solar 5, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 8, 2020.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 18, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25927 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P