[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 52750]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR15-36-000]

NST Express, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on August 25, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), NST Express, LLC
(NST or Petitioner) filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking
approval of the service priorities and rate structure (but not specific
rates) to be offered in an open season to be conducted by NST for the
NST Express Pipeline, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    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 Petitioner.
    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 5 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 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 25, 2015.

    Dated: August 26, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21592 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59761-59763]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24732]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65374; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Series 37 Examination Program

September 21, 2011.
    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 September 7, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) 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 FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as ``constituting a stated policy,
practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule'' under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is filing revisions to the content outline and selection
specifications for the Canada Securities Representative (Series 37)
examination program.\5\ The proposed revisions update the material to
reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the
examination and to better reflect the functions and associated tasks
performed by a Canada Securities Representative and the relationships
between the different components of the outline. FINRA is not proposing
any textual changes to the By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws, or Rules
of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA also is proposing corresponding revisions to the
Series 37 question bank, but based upon instruction from the
Commission staff, FINRA is submitting SR-FINRA-2011-047 for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and is not filing the question bank
for Commission review. See Letter to Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, from Belinda Blaine,
Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated July
24, 2000. The question bank is available for Commission review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised content outline is attached.\6\ The Series 37 selection
specifications have been submitted to the Commission under separate
cover with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to SEA Rule
24b-2.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission notes that the content outline is attached to
the filing, not to this Notice.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act \8\ authorizes FINRA to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members. In accordance with that provision, FINRA
has developed examinations that are designed to establish that persons
associated with FINRA members have attained specified levels of
competence and knowledge, consistent with applicable registration
requirements under FINRA Rules. FINRA periodically reviews the content
of the examinations to determine whether revisions are necessary or
appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject matter covered
by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rules and the rules incorporated from NYSE \9\ require that a
``representative,'' as defined in the respective rules,\10\ register
and qualify as a General Securities Representative,\11\ subject to
certain exceptions. For those representatives who are not engaged in
municipal securities activities, the NASD and NYSE Rules provide that
registration and qualification as a Canada Securities Representative is
equivalent to registration and qualification as a General Securities
Representative.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process). For convenience, the Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the NYSE Rules.
    \10\ See NASD Rule 1031(b) and NYSE Rule 10.
    \11\ See NASD Rules 1031(a) and 1032(a); NYSE Rules 345.10 and
345.15(2); and NYSE Rule Interpretation 345.15/02.
    \12\ See NASD Rule 1032(a)(2)(C) and NYSE Information Memorandum
96-06 (March 1996). FINRA is filing proposed revisions to the Series
7 examination program in conjunction with this filing. See SR-FINRA-
2011-045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 37 examination is a FINRA examination that qualifies an
individual to function as a Canada Securities Representative.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Both the Series 37 examination and the Series 38
examination are FINRA examinations that qualify an individual to
function as a Canada Securities Representative. In either case,
candidates must also satisfy certain prerequisite training and
competence requirements of the Canadian regulators and be registered
and in good standing with the appropriate Canadian regulator.
However, candidates for the Series 38 examination are subject to the
following additional Canadian prerequisite. They must complete
either: (1) The Options Licensing Course and the Derivatives
Fundamental Course; or (2) the Canadian Options Course. More
information regarding the prerequisite requirements is available on
FINRA's Web site at: http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/Registration/QualificationsExams/RegisteredReps/Qualifications/P121265. FINRA is filing proposed revisions to the Series 38
examination program in conjunction with this filing. See SR-FINRA-
2011-048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA staff,
recently undertook a review of the Series 37 examination program. As a
result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the
content outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations
covered by the examination and to better reflect the functions and
associated tasks performed by a Canada Securities Representative and
the relationship between the different components of the content
outline.
Current Outline
    The current Series 37 content outline is divided into seven topics.
The following are the number of questions associated with each of the
seven topics, denoted I through VII:

I: 16 questions.
II: 10 questions.
III: 4 questions.
IV: 5 questions.
V: 4 questions.
VI: 6 questions.
VII: 45 questions.

    The topics include: Federal and State Laws and Industry
Regulations; Investments; Margin; Retirement Plans; Variable Annuities;
Taxation; and Options.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Unlike the Series 38 examination, the Series 37 examination
includes test questions that assess knowledge of options since
individuals wishing to sit for the Series 37 examination are not
subject to the Canadian options prerequisite noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Revisions
    FINRA is proposing to divide the Series 37 content outline into
five major job functions performed by a Canada Securities
Representative. The following are the five major job functions, denoted
F1 through F5, and the number of questions associated with each of the
five functions:
    F1: Seeks Business for the Broker-Dealer through Customers and
Potential Customers, 22 questions;
    F2: Evaluates Customers' Other Security Holdings, Financial
Situation and Needs, Financial Status, Tax Status, and Investment
Objectives, 12 questions;
    F3: Opens Accounts, Transfers Assets, and Maintains Appropriate
Account Records, 18 questions;
    F4: Provides Customers with Information on Investments and Makes
Suitable Recommendations, 16 questions; and
    F5: Obtains and Verifies Customer's Purchase and Sales
Instructions, Enters Orders, and Follows Up, 22 questions.
    Additionally, each job function includes certain tasks describing
activities associated with performing that function. FINRA is proposing
to revise the outline to better reflect the functions and associated
tasks performed by a Canada Securities Representative.
    The revised content outline also includes a knowledge section
describing the underlying knowledge required to perform the major job
functions and associated tasks and a rule section listing the laws,
rules and regulations related to the job functions, associated tasks
and knowledge statements. There are cross-references within each
section to the other applicable sections.
    As noted above, FINRA also is proposing to revise the content
outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered
by the examination. Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise
the content outline to reflect the adoption of rules in the
consolidated FINRA rulebook (e.g., FINRA Rule 3240 (Borrowing From or
Lending to Customers)).
    FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 37 selection
specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series
37 examination will remain at 90 multiple-choice questions, and
candidates will continue to have 150 minutes (2\1/2\ hours) to complete
the examination.
    Currently, a score of 70 percent is required to pass the
examination. A score of 72 percent will be required to pass the revised
examination.
Availability of Content Outlines
    The revised Series 37 content outline will be available on FINRA's
Web site, at http://www.finra.org/brokerqualifications/exams.
    FINRA is filing the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. FINRA proposes to implement the revised Series 37
examination program on November 7, 2011. FINRA will announce the
proposed rule change and the implementation date in a Regulatory
Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 37
examination program are consistent with the

provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\16\ which authorizes
FINRA to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence
for persons associated with FINRA members. FINRA believes that the
proposed revisions will further these purposes by updating the
examination program to reflect changes to the laws, rules and
regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the
functions and associated tasks performed by a Canada Securities
Representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\18\ FINRA proposes to implement the revised Series 37
examination program on November 7, 2011. FINRA will announce the
implementation date in a Regulatory Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
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.

V. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-047 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.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-047. 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-2011-047
and should be submitted on or before October 18, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24732 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80833-80834]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32193]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1110]

Shipboard Air Emission Reduction Technology Report

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In Section 305 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010,
Congress directs the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to conduct a study, in conjunction with the
Environmental Protection Agency, on Ship Emission Reduction Technology
for cargo and passenger vessels that operate in United States waters
and ports. For this study, the Coast Guard and the Environmental
Protection Agency will survey new technology and new applications of
existing technology for reducing air emissions from cargo and passenger
vessels regulated under the Clean Air Act and the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships, and identify the impediments, including any laws
or regulations, to the implementation of this technology. Through this
notice, the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency invite
the public to provide information on the state of current and future
air emission reduction technology, including specific comments on any
impediments to this technology.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before January 18,
2011 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-1110 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail LT Nicholas Woessner, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-
372-1307, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material to be
incorporated into the Shipboard Air Emission Reduction Technology
report to Congress. All comments received will be posted, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal
information you have provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2010-1110) and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an e-mail 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,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Notices'' and insert ``USCG-2010-1110'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click
``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column.
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 them 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.
    Viewing the comments: To view the comments for the report to
Congress on Ship Emission Reduction Technology, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-
2010-1110'' and click ``Search.'' Click the

``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting 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. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    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, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    The U.S. implemented the Clean Air Act, Title 42 of the U.S. Code,
Chapter 85, and the Act to Prevent Pollution from ships, 33 U.S.C.
1905-1915, by promulgating regulations for ship air emissions in Title
40, Protection of Environment, sections 50-99 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and ratifying the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol
of 1978 (MARPOL) Annex VI. These regulations require the reduction of
nitrous oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), and
particulate matter (PM) emissions from ships. Additionally, the U.S.
has established an emission control area (ECA) for the U.S. under
MARPOL Annex VI that further limits NOX and SOX
emissions from ships. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and
MARPOL Annex VI apply to both new and existing ships and will require
the commercial maritime industry to implement new technology that will
reduce NOX, SOX and PM emissions from all ships.
    In developing the ship air emission regulations, the Coast Guard
and the Environmental Protection Agency worked with industry and other
stakeholders to identify and evaluate emission control technology for
ships.\1\ At this time, the Coast Guard and the Environmental
Protection Agency seek additional information about new and existing
technology for reducing these air emissions from cargo or passenger
vessels subject to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and/or
MARPOL Annex VI. It also seeks to identify impediments, including any
laws or regulations, to implementing this technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis: Control of Air Pollution from Category 3 Marine Diesel
Engines, EPA-420-R-09-019, December 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are particularly interested in information that includes details
about:
    --Data and analysis from the maritime community concerning the
state of their air emission reduction technologies;
    --The technology relating to after-treatment systems, alternative
fuels, advanced engine design, auxiliary equipment, and other pertinent
processes;
    --The projected or measured percent reduction of air emissions
achieved from specific equipment;
    --Any adverse impacts, safety implications, or any system
integration effects with other shipboard equipment;
    --Potential capital and operating costs or savings of the
equipment's implementation.
    Please consider the following questions when responding to this
notice:
    (A) What new technology exists for reducing air emissions from
cargo or passenger ships?
    (B) What is the availability of such technology?
    (C) What methods or equipment are currently under development that
may be able to meet the MARPOL Annex VI requirements?
    (D) Are methods or equipment being applied for similar purposes in
other transportation modes or industries (e.g., military, rail, over-
the-road truck industries, manufacturing, power) that merit
investigation for use aboard vessels?

Authority

    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 14
U.S.C. 93(a)(4).

    Dated: December 17, 2010.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-32193 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 40148-40149]
[DOCID:fr23jy07-43]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0019; FRL-8444-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Clean Watersheds Needs Survey; ICR No. 0318.11; OMB
Control No. 2040-0050

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2003-0019 by one of the following methods:
      http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
4104T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Docket at Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 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 comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-
0019. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

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

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Plastino, Municipal Support
Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; phone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0019, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of

information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
state governments and publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities.
    Title: Clean Watersheds Needs Survey.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0318.11, OMB Control No. 2040-0050.
    ICR status: The current ICR (EPA ICR No. 0318.10) is scheduled to
expire on July 31, 2008. The effective date of this ICR renewal (EPA
ICR No. 0318.11) is January 22, 2008--at which point EPA ICR No.
0318.10 will be superseded by EPA ICR No. 0318.11. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title
40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) is required by
Sections 205(a) and 516(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (http://www.epa.gov/cwns
). It is a periodic inventory of existing and proposed

publicly owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs) and other water
pollution control facilities in the United States, as well as an
estimate of how many POTWs need to be built. The CWNS is a voluntary,
joint effort of EPA and the States. The Survey records cost and
technical data associated with POTWs and other water pollution control
facilities, existing and proposed, in the United States. The State
respondents who provide this information to EPA are State agencies
responsible for environmental pollution control. No confidential
information is used, nor is sensitive information protected from
release under the Public Information Act. EPA achieves national
consistency in the final results through the application of uniform
guidelines and validation techniques.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.46
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR will provide a detailed explanation of the Agency's
estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 56 State (States,
District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories) respondents, approximately
5,400 water pollution control facilities.
    Frequency of response: Every 4 Years.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each State
respondent: 322, of which approximately 100 are estimated to involve
State interaction with water pollution control facilities.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 8,807.
    Estimated total annual costs: $296,000. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $296,000 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    There is an overall increase of 1,136 annual hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR
approved by OMB for the 2004 Survey under EPA ICR No. 0318.09 (the
currently active EPA ICR No. 0318.10 only covers infrequent updates,
made by States solely for their own State's benefit, in the period
between the 2004 and 2008 Surveys).
    Feedback received from States following the 2004 survey indicated
that the total burden to the 56 respondents was approximately 893
annual hours greater than the 7,672 annual hours estimated in EPA ICR
No. 0318.09. Additionally, State feedback indicated approximately 1,713
annual burden hours for POTWs to interact with States on State's
responses to the 2004 Survey. Taken together, the 893 additional annual
state hours and the 1,713 POTW hours add to 2,605 annual hours expended
in 2004 beyond what was estimated in EPA ICR No. 0318.09.
    EPA, in partnership with States, is in the process of completing
several activities that will decrease the total annual burden hours.
The development of a new web-based data entry system, in conjunction
with reduced data element requirements and several streamlined methods
for assuring data quality, are estimated to reduce reporting burden by
2,536 annual hours.
    The projected increase in the number of facilities for which States
submit needs (due to greater availability of substantiating
documentation and needs estimation techniques) correlates with an
increase of approximately 1,066 annual hours.

What is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: July 17, 2007.
James A. Hanlon,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
 [FR Doc. E7-14157 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From: Landon, Chelsea

Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 12:50 PM

To: Hartman, Pamela

Subject: FW: Distribution of Carpet Percentages from HUD NSLAH 5th and
95th

From: Lee, Rodney (Mark)

Sent: Thu 7/26/2007 2:39 PM

To: Landon, Chelsea

Subject: FW: Distribution of Carpet Percentages from HUD NSLAH

 Here are the high (95th) and low (5th) values for % carpet in
residences.  This, combined with the hard copy I gave you earlier,
should be everything you need.  I'll go ahead and ask for the
references for these data.

mark

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS>[  HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>]

Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:38 PM

To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lee,
Rodney (Mark)

Subject: Distribution of Carpet Percentages from HUD NSLAH

The 5th and 95% percentile values for residential carpeting are 0% and
92.3%, respecitvely.

            "Lee,
Rodney

\(Mark\)"

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
             To

  Lynn Delpire/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

             07/26/2007
12:05
       cc

             PM
Conrad Flessner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

  William Silagi/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

                            Subject

  RE: Carpet Percentages from HUD

Hi Lynn -

Would it be possible for us to get the CV for the residential % values?

If not, could we get 5th and 9th percentiles (this file includes 25th
and 75th).

Thanks,

Mark


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2310-2312]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00305]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68582; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-146]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Strategy Caps

January 4, 2013.
    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 December 21, 2012, NASDAQ OMX 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend rule text related to fee caps
applicable to certain strategies on Multiply Listed Options in Section
II, entitled ``Equity Options Fees.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section II Equity Options fees include options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.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 correct rule text
inadvertently included in a recent proposed rule change related to fee
caps on dividend,\4\ merger,\5\ short stock interest \6\ and reversal
\7\ and conversion \8\ strategies in order to clarify contradictory
language within the rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A dividend strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend.
    \5\ A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to achieve
a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
options of the same class and expiration date, executed the first
business day prior to the date on which shareholders of record are
required to elect their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash
or stock.
    \6\ A short stock interest strategy is defined as transactions
done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the
purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same
class.
    \7\ Reversals are established by combining a short stock
position with a short put and a long call position that shares the
same strike and expiration.
    \8\ Conversions are established by combining a long position in
the underlying stock with a long put and a short call position that
share the same strike and expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently filed a rule change which applied fee caps on
various strategies in Section II of the Pricing Schedule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68406 (December 11,
2012), 77 FR 74715 (December 17, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-138).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other amendments, this rule change increased the cap for
dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies from $1,000 to
$1,250 provided the strategy is executed on the same trading day in the
same options class when such members are trading in their own
proprietary account. Further, the Exchange adopted a cap for floor
options transaction charges for reversal and conversion strategies of
$750, provided the reversal and conversion strategy is executed on the
same trading day in the same options class when such members are
trading in their own proprietary account, similar to dividend, merger
and short stock interest strategies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange also increased the cap for floor equity
options transaction charges for dividend, merger and short stock
interest strategies combined from the greater of $10,000 per member
or $25,000 per member organization per month to simply $35,000 per
member organization per month provided that such members are trading
in their own proprietary account. The Exchange proposed to apply
this cap of $35,000 per member organization per month to reversal
and conversion strategies as well and term the cap as the ``Monthly
Strategy Cap.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68406
(December 11, 2012), 77 FR 74715 (December 17, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-
138).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule text was amended to state, ``Specialist, Market Maker,
Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer floor option transaction charges
in Multiply Listed Options will be capped at $1,250 per month for
dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies executed on the
same trading day in the same options class, and option transaction
charges in Multiply Listed Options will be capped at $750 per month for
reversal and conversion strategies executed on the same trading day in
the same options class when such members are trading in their own
proprietary accounts.'' [emphases added] The Exchange noted that the
strategies need to be executed on the same trading day. Strategy caps
offered by the Exchange are and have always been on a per symbol, per
day basis. The insertion of the text ``per month'' was inadvertent. The
Exchange proposes to delete the ``per month'' text which is inaccurate
and contradicts other text which states the strategies need to be
executed on the same trading day. The Exchange intended the strategy
caps of $1,250 and $750 to be per symbol, per day. The Exchange is
proposing to remove the text ``per month'' to correct the Pricing
Schedule at Section II and clarify the caps are for the same trading
day as specified in the rule text.
    The Exchange does not believe that this error caused confusion
because the Exchange issued an Options Trader Alert at the time the
filing became effective to notify members of the cap. The alert was
clear that the caps were per day. In addition, the Exchange has spoken
to members and does not believe there is any confusion. The purpose of
this filing is to correct the Pricing Schedule by removing the words
``per month'' to make clear the caps are per day.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text relating to
strategies is reasonable because the words ``per month'' and ``on the
same trading day'' are at odds. The Exchange's proposal to remove the
words ``per month'' should clarify the application of the fee caps
related to strategies.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text relating to
strategies is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange would apply the fee caps in a similar manner to all market
participants. All market participants are entitled to the caps on a per
day, per symbol basis.

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. The Exchange's proposal is to
correct rule text which contains contradictory language. The Exchange
believes this amendment would provide clarity with respect to the
application of strategy caps and would benefit market participants. The
Exchange does not believe that there is a misunderstanding among market
participants that the strategy caps are per day.

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.\13\ 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors,

or 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2012-146 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-Phlx-2012-146. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices 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-2012-146, and should be submitted on or before
January 31, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00305 Filed 1-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 46081]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. FAA-2019-32]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Ameristar
Air Cargo, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0629
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thea Dickerman<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2019.
Brandon Roberts,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0629.
    Petitioner: Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  121.407(a)(1)(ii),
121.441(b)(1), and part 121 Appendix F.
    Description of Relief Sought: Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. (Ameristar)
seeks an exemption from 14 CFR 121.407(a)(1)(ii) to allow it to use a
Boeing 737-400 full flight simulator (FFS) to provide flight training
on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts for pilots who will serve
in the Boeing 737-200. Additionally, Ameristar seeks an exemption from
Sec.  121.441(b)(1) and part 121 Appendix F, items II(c)(2) and V(c)(2)
to allow it to conduct pilot proficiency checks in the Boeing 737-200
FFS without including the required crosswind takeoff and landing with
gusts. Ameristar clarifies that the pilot proficiency checks will
include crosswind takeoff and landing; however, the FFS is not
qualified for crosswinds with gusts.
[FR Doc. 2019-18974 Filed 8-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM Date: April 22, 2002 To: Docket A 2000 01 From: Bryan Hubbell Senior Economist, OAQPS Re: Estimated NO x, SO 2, and PM Emissions Health Damages for Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions This note provides a simple analysis of the health costs of NO x, SO 2, and PM emissions from diesel vehicles ( or similarly health benefits of emission reductions from these vehicles). It is important to recognize that these are screening level ballpark estimates. These numbers are uncertain and may significantly under or overstate actual benefits of any emission reductions. These transfer coefficients may be appropriate for screening level analyses or in informal discussions to gain a general understanding of the value of reducing diesel emissions, as long as the limitations and major underlying assumptions are clearly explained. Please contact me before using these results for any other purpose ( 919) 541 0621.

Our approach is to develop estimates of health costs expressed in per ton terms. These transfer estimates will then allow us to examine scenarios involving reductions in emissions from diesel vehicles without having to prepare model ready emissions inventories or having to perform new air quality modeling runs. We employ the REMSAD modeling used for the HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel Rule RIA benefits analysis to determine estimates of damages/ ton. Aggregate damage estimates at the national level can be scaled by national population to account for population changes between years of analysis. Because of the assumptions inherent in these national estimates, it is not appropriate to scale them to local populations. Complete details of the emissions, air quality, and benefits modeling conducted for the HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel Rule can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ diesel. htm and http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ ecas/ regdata/ tsdhddv8. pdf.

We examine the impacts of SO 2, NO x, and direct PM emissions. Excess emissions of NO x are associated with potential increases in both ozone and particulate matter ( PM). Excess emissions of SO 2 and direct PM are primarily associated with increases in PM. Due to data limitations, we are providing estimates only for PM related health impacts. The vast majority of the benefits we are able to measure are PM related. Thus, these estimates will capture most of the monetized benefits associated with reductions in SO 2, NO x, and direct PM emissions. However, one important limitation is that benefits from ozone reductions, visibility improvement, and other unquantifiable health endpoints are not captured in these estimates. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 1.

Before applying the values reported in this memo for policy analysis, several factors should be considered. These factors include whether the sources of emissions, meteorology, transport of emissions, initial PM concentrations, population density, and population demographics are reasonably consistent with those used in generating the benefit transfer values. A major assumption is that application of these results is for cases where the situation is consistent with the conditions examined in the HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel analysis. A general rule is that as these factors increasingly diverge, the likelihood of significant error in the estimated benefits values will increase.

While the benefit transfer figures will provide a reasonable ball park estimate of the national benefits of a nationwide reduction in emissions from diesel sources, considerably more uncertainty is introduced by applying the transfer value for the nation to specific emission reductions within a particular state or region. This occurs because we assume that all emissions from diesel sources are valued at the same average $/ ton/ person amount. There may be significant variation in the $/ ton/ person for any specific ton of emission reductions. The magnitude and direction of this bias is not known. This limitation should be pointed out to audiences of your analysis.

It is also important to note that the population adjustments provided in the method below are to account for growth in the national population in future years. You should not adjust the $/ ton or incidence/ ton transfer estimates within a given year for differences in populations between a given region of interest and the national population. This will lead to a severe underestimation bias in your results. This is because the averaging process assumes that all reductions in emissions, wherever they occur, affect air quality across the entire U. S. population. In order to derive appropriate transfer values for states or regions within the U. S., you must first construct incidence/ ton and/ or $/ ton estimates for the entire country for the year( s) of interest and then apply those to the emission reductions in the particular region ( see below for an example). The total $/ ton estimates listed for each pollutant in Table 1 can be used to value tons reduced anywhere in the U. S. for 2001 population levels. For other years, you will have to recalculate the national average $/ ton using the procedures described below. Again, let me remind the user that applying these average $/ ton estimates, which are based on emission reductions that occured throughout the U. S., to emission reductions occuring in a specific location, can lead to potentially signficant biases ( of an unknown direction) in the results.

Finally, it should be noted that benefit transfer values should be used only as an input to a screening level benefits analysis or analyses intended to provide ballpark estimates of what benefits could be provided by reductions in diesel emissions. For policy support purposes, such as a regulatory impact analysis, a full benefits analysis should be conducted, using best practices including emissions modeling, air quality modeling, and application of health and economic valuation functions at an appropriate geographic scale. Table 1. Summary of Health Effects and Economic Cost Estimates for Transfer Health Effect Incidence/ ton in 2001 based on U. S. population of 277 million Estimated $/ ton economic costs in 2001 based on U. S. population of 277 million ( 1999$)

SO2 NOx PM SO2 NOx PM All cause Premature Mortality from Long term Exposure 0.0025 0.0016 0.0221 $ 15,528 $ 9,726 $ 136,164 Chronic Bronchitis 0.0016 0.0010 0.0143 $ 564 $ 350 $ 5,012 Hospital Admissions  COPD 0.0003 0.0002 0.0024 $ 3 $ 2 $ 30 Hospital Admissions  Pneumonia 0.0003 0.0002 0.0030 $ 5 $ 3 $ 44 Hospital Admissions  Asthma 0.0002 0.0002 0.0023 $ 2 $ 1 $ 15 Hospital Admissions  Total Cardiovascular 0.0008 0.0005 0.0072 $ 15 $ 10 $ 132 Asthma Related ER Visits 0.0006 0.0004 0.0053 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2 Asthma Attacks 0.0517 0.0324 0.4566 $ 2 $ 1 $ 19 Acute Bronchitis 0.0054 0.0034 0.0479 <$ 1 <$ 1 $ 3 Upper Respiratory Symptoms 0.0588 0.0368 0.5188 $ 1 $ 1 $ 13 Lower Respiratory Symptoms 0.0598 0.0373 0.5270 $ 1 $ 1 $ 8 Work Loss Days 0.4554 0.2849 4.0180 $ 48 $ 30 $ 402 Minor Restricted Activity Days ( minus asthma attacks) 2.3681 1.3875 20.9184 $ 116 $ 68 $ 1,023 Totals $ 16,621 $ 10,193 $ 142,867 Note that the wide discrepancy between the per ton values of NO x, SO 2, and direct PM is due to differences in their contributions to ambient concentrations of PM 2.5.

Example of estimating total national program benefits When applying these estimates, please make sure to scale these estimates to the appropriate populations ( see Attachment 1). Also note that application of economic values to the estimates of incidences should be done with caution. Incidences in different future years will have different values based on adjustments to WTP for growth in income over time. See Attachment 2 for a schedule of adjustment factors and adjusted WTP values to be applied for each year out to 2030. Adjustment factors should not be applied to the values for avoided hospital admissions, as these are cost of illness estimates and not WTP estimates. Likewise, adjustment factors should not be applied to the value of work loss days, as this is a wage based estimate, not WTP.

While the base value for a mortality incidence is $ 6.1 million ( 1999$), this number is always adjusted downward to reflect the impact of discounting over the assumed 5 year lag period between reductions in PM concentrations and full realization of reduced mortality. The lagadjusted base VSL is $ 5.8 million ( 1999$) when a 3% discount rate is assumed. Thus the attached table reflects income adjustments applied to these lag adjusted base values.

For example, if one were to estimate the value of a nationwide reduction in NO x emissions of 1 million tons in the year 2005, the avoided incidences of premature mortality would be:

0.00196 ( from Table 2) * 0.829 ( from Attachment 1)* 1,000,000 = 1,625 And the value of those avoided incidences would be:

1,625*$ 6.27 million ( from Attachment 2) = $ 10,189 million Example of estimating local area's contribution to national benefits If the reduction in NO x emissions were only in Seattle, for example, and the reductions were only 10,000 tons in the year 2001, then you would calculate the incidences per ton of NO x as 0.00196* 0.829* 10,000= 16. Recall however, that this is assuming that a ton of NOx reduced in Seattle affects PM concentrations everywhere in the U. S. in the same average way. Not a very realistic assumption, which is why it is better to apply these calculations at the national level. The important thing to remember is that populations from Attachment 1 should only be used to adjust for differences in national populations across years, not to adjust for differences in regional populations.

Details on Generation of Per Ton Estimates HDD with REMSAD Modeling The HDD analysis examined the impacts in 2030 of reducing SO 2 emissions by 141,000 tons and NO x emissions by 2,570,000 tons, as well as a 109,000 ton reduction in direct PM emissions.

SO2 Screening Analysis ° Input the population weighted change in annual mean sulfate of  0.034 micrograms per cubic meter into each of the concentration response functions used in the HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel rule benefits analysis. This yields estimates of the health effects associated with the SO 2 emission reductions. Based on 2030 populations, this change leads to the estimated reductions in health effects listed in the second column of Table 2. Note that for C R functions that use daily average PM 2.5 or PM 10 levels, use of the annual mean as a proxy for daily averages will over or underestimate the annual incidence by a small amount ( less than five percent). ° Divide attributable incidences by SO 2 tons reduced resulting in incidences per ton of SO 2 reduced in 2030 as listed in the third column of Table 2.

° Multiply incidences per ton by the ratio of population in the year of analysis to population in 2030. For example, multiplying by 0.803 gives the correct incidence per ton estimate for 2001 ( 277/ 345= 0.803), reported in Table 1.

NOx Screening Analysis ° Input the population weighted change in nitrate of  0.388 micrograms per cubic meter into each of the concentration response functions used in the HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel rule benefits analysis. This yields estimates of the health effects associated with the NO x emission reductions. Based on 2030 populations, this change leads to the estimated reductions in health effects listed in the fourth column of Table 2. Note that for C R functions that use daily average PM 2.5 or PM 10 levels, use of the annual mean as a proxy for daily averages will over or underestimate the annual incidence by a small amount ( less than five percent).

° Divide attributable incidences by NO x tons reduced resulting in incidences per ton of NO x reduced in 2030 as listed in the fifth column of Table 2.

° Multiply incidences per ton by the ratio of population in the year of analysis to population in 2030. For example, multiplying by 0.803 gives the correct incidence per ton estimate for 2001 ( 277/ 345= 0.803), reported in Table 1. ° Direct PM Screening Analysis ° Input the population weighted change in primary PM of  0.232 micrograms per cubic meter into each of the concentration response functions used in the HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel rule benefits analysis. This yields estimates of the health effects associated with the PM emission reductions. Based on 2030 populations, this change leads to the estimated reductions in health effects listed in the sixth column of Table 2. Note that for C R functions that use daily average PM 2.5 or PM 10 levels, use of the annual mean as a proxy for daily averages will over or underestimate the annual incidence by a small amount ( less than five percent).

° Divide attributable incidences by primary PM tons reduced resulting in incidences per ton of primary PM reduced in 2030 as listed in the seventh column of Table 2. ° Multiply incidences per ton by the ratio of population in the year of analysis to population in 2030. For example, multiplying by 0.803 gives the correct incidence per ton estimate for 2001 ( 277/ 345= 0.803), reported in Table 1.

Background on REMSAD 2030 Modeling The Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition ( REMSAD) is a threedimensional grid based Eulerian air quality model designed to estimate annual particulate concentrations and deposition over large spatial scales ( e. g., over the contiguous U. S.). The RIA benefits analysis applies the modeling system to the entire U. S. for two future year scenarios: a 2030 base case and a 2030 HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel control scenario. The particulate matter species modeled by REMSAD include a primary fine fraction ( corresponding to particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter) and several secondary particulates ( e. g., sulfates, nitrates, and organics). PM 2.5 is calculated as the sum of the primary fine fraction and all of the secondary particulates.

For the purposes of this analysis, we separated the predicted 2030 change in the primary and secondarily formed components of PM 2.5 ( i. e., sulfates and nitrates) to provide attributable health effects for SO 2 and NO x. The change in primary concentrations is represented by the sum of PMFINE, particulate elemental carbon ( PEC), and total organic aerosols ( TOA), the secondary sulfate change is represented by total sulfate ( TSO 4), and the secondary nitrate change is represented by particulate nitrate ( PNO 3). It is deemed appropriate for this " scoping" analysis to separate these predicted concentrations because of the limited interactions of secondary sulfate and nitrates within the modeling system and the limited contribution of secondary organic aerosols ( SOA) to TOA ( i. e., since there little or no change in VOCs). Table 2. Summary of Results from 2030 HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel Health Benefits Analysis Health Outcome SO 2 NO x PM Avoided Incidences Avoided Incidences Avoided Incidences Total Per Ton Total Per Ton Total Per Ton Premature Mortality All cause premature mortality from long term exposure 441 0.00313 5,027 0.00196 3,007 0.02759 Chronic Illness Chronic Bronchitis ( pooled estimate) 285 0.00202 3,243 0.00126 1,941 0.01781 Hospital Admissions COPD 49 0.00034 554 0.00022 331 0.00304 Pneumonia 59 0.00042 676 0.00026 404 0.00371 Asthma 46 0.00032 523 0.00020 313 0.00289 Total Cardiovascular 143 0.00102 1,635 0.00064 978 0.00897 Asthma Related ER Visits 106 0.00075 1,209 0.00047 723 0.00663 Other Effects Asthma Attacks 9,107 0.06459 103,905 0.04043 62,135 0.57005 Acute Bronchitis 957 0.00679 10,874 0.00423 6,515 0.05977 Upper Respiratory Symptoms 10,348 0.07339 118,063 0.04594 70,601 0.64771 Lower Respiratory Symptoms 10,528 0.07467 119,760 0.04660 71,711 0.65790 Work Loss Days 80,163 0.56853 914,055 0.35566 546,744 5.01600 Minor Restricted Activity Days ( minus asthma attacks) 416,836 2.95628 4,763,239 1.85300 2,846,434 26.11407 Attachment 1. Continental United States Population Estimates for Use in Analysis of Alternative Years Year Population ( millions) Ratio of Analysis Year Population to 2030 Population 1990 249 0.722 1991 252 0.730 1992 255 0.739 1993 258 0.748 1994 260 0.754 1995 263 0.762 1996 265 0.768 1997 268 0.777 1998 270 0.783 1999 272 0.788 2000 275 0.797 2001 277 0.803 2002 279 0.809 2003 281 0.814 2004 284 0.823 2005 286 0.829 2006 288 0.835 2007 291 0.843 2008 293 0.849 2009 295 0.855 2010 298 0.864 2011 302 0.875 2012 305 0.884 2013 307 0.890 2014 310 0.899 2015 312 0.904 2016 315 0.913 2017 317 0.919 2018 320 0.928 2019 322 0.933 2020 324 0.939 2021 327 0.948 2022 330 0.957 2023 333 0.965 2024 335 0.971 2030 345 1.000 Note: Population covers the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. Attachment 2. Longitudinal Income Adjustment Factors for Value of Statistical Life and Other Health Effect Values Year VSL Adjustment Factor Adjusted VSL ( million 1999$) Chronic Bronchitis Value Adjustment Factor Adjusted Chronic Bronchitis Value ( thousand 1999$) Minor Health Effect Value Adjustment Factor 1990 1.0000 $ 5.80 1.0000 $ 331.00 1.0000 1991 0.9920 $ 5.75 0.9910 $ 328.02 0.9972 1992 0.9981 $ 5.79 0.9979 $ 330.30 0.9993 1993 1.0031 $ 5.82 1.0035 $ 332.16 1.0011 1994 1.0128 $ 5.87 1.0145 $ 335.80 1.0045 1995 1.0170 $ 5.90 1.0191 $ 337.32 1.0059 1996 1.0244 $ 5.94 1.0275 $ 340.10 1.0085 1997 1.0343 $ 6.00 1.0387 $ 343.81 1.0119 1998 1.0393 $ 6.03 1.0443 $ 345.66 1.0136 1999 1.0436 $ 6.05 1.0491 $ 347.25 1.0150 2000 1.0487 $ 6.08 1.0550 $ 349.21 1.0168 2001 1.0544 $ 6.12 1.0614 $ 351.32 1.0187 2002 1.0609 $ 6.15 1.0688 $ 353.77 1.0209 2003 1.0675 $ 6.19 1.0763 $ 356.26 1.0231 2004 1.0742 $ 6.23 1.0839 $ 358.77 1.0254 2005 1.0805 $ 6.27 1.0911 $ 361.15 1.0275 2006 1.0869 $ 6.30 1.0983 $ 363.54 1.0296 2007 1.0933 $ 6.34 1.1055 $ 365.92 1.0317 2008 1.0996 $ 6.38 1.1128 $ 368.34 1.0338 2009 1.1060 $ 6.41 1.1201 $ 370.75 1.0359 2010 1.1124 $ 6.45 1.1274 $ 373.17 1.0380 2011 1.1965 $ 6.94 1.2239 $ 405.11 1.0647 2012 1.2041 $ 6.98 1.2326 $ 407.99 1.0670 2013 1.2130 $ 7.04 1.2429 $ 411.40 1.0697 2014 1.2229 $ 7.09 1.2544 $ 415.21 1.0728 2015 1.2326 $ 7.15 1.2655 $ 418.88 1.0757 2016 1.2414 $ 7.20 1.2757 $ 422.26 1.0783 2017 1.2498 $ 7.25 1.2855 $ 425.50 1.0809 2018 1.2574 $ 7.29 1.2943 $ 428.41 1.0831 2019 1.2646 $ 7.33 1.3027 $ 431.19 1.0853 2020 1.2783 $ 7.41 1.3186 $ 436.46 1.0893 2021 1.2784 $ 7.41 1.3188 $ 436.52 1.0894 2022 1.2847 $ 7.45 1.3261 $ 438.94 1.0912 2023 1.2910 $ 7.49 1.3335 $ 441.39 1.0931 2024 1.2972 $ 7.52 1.3407 $ 443.77 1.0949


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53439-53440]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21830]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10000-95-Region 3]

Delegation of Authority to the Commonwealth of Virginia To
Implement and Enforce Additional or Revised National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants Standards and New Source Performance
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of delegation of authority.

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

SUMMARY: On September 12, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) sent the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) a letter
acknowledging that Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and
enforce the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) had been updated,
as provided for under previously approved delegation mechanisms. To
inform regulated facilities and the public, EPA is making available a
copy of EPA's letter to Virginia through this notice.

DATES: On September 12, 2019, EPA sent Virginia a letter acknowledging
that Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce
Federal NESHAPs had been updated.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents pertaining to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. Copies of
Virginia's submittal are also available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 1111 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Riley Burger,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 21, 2019, Virginia notified EPA
that Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of Federal
NESHAPs to include many such standards, as they were published in final
form in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) dated July 1, 2018. On
September 12, 2019, EPA sent Virginia a letter acknowledging that
Virginia now has the authority to implement and enforce the NESHAPs as
specified by Virginia in its notice to EPA, as provided for under
previously approved automatic delegation mechanisms. All notifications,
applications, reports, and other correspondence required pursuant to
the delegated NESHAPs must be submitted to both EPA, Region III and to
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, unless the delegated
standard specifically provides that such submittals may be sent to EPA
or a delegated State. In such cases, the submittals should be sent only
to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. A copy of EPA's
letter to Virginia follows:

``Michael G. Dowd, Director Air Division
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1105
Richmond, Virginia 23218

Dear Mr. Dowd:

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
previously delegated to the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) the
authority to implement and enforce various federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (MACT standards)
which are found at 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, respectively. In
those actions, EPA also delegated to Virginia the authority to
implement and enforce any future federal NSPS, NESHAP or MACT
Standards on the condition that Virginia legally adopt the future
standards, make only allowed wording changes, and provide specified
notice to EPA.
    In a letter dated February 21, 2019, Virginia submitted to EPA
revised versions of Virginia's regulations which incorporate by
reference specified federal NSPS, NESHAP and MACT standards, as
those federal standards had been published in final form in the Code
of Federal Regulations dated July 1, 2018. Virginia committed to
enforcing the federal standards in conformance with the terms of
EPA's previous delegations of authority and made only allowed
wording changes.
    Virginia stated that it had submitted the revisions ``to retain
its authority to enforce the NSPSs and NESHAPs under the delegation
of authority granted by EPA on August 27, 1981 (46 FR 43300) and to
enforce the MACT standards under the delegation of authority granted
by EPA on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3938) and January 8, 2002 (67 FR
825).''
    Virginia provided copies of its revised regulations which
specify the NSPS, NESHAP and MACT Standards which it had adopted by
reference. Virginia's revised regulations are entitled 9 VAC 5-50
``New and Modified Stationary Sources,'' and 9 VAC 5-60 ``Hazardous
Air Pollutant Sources.'' These revised regulations have an effective
date of February 20, 2019.
    Based on Virginia's submittal, EPA acknowledges that EPA's
delegations to Virginia of the authority implement and enforce EPA's
NSPS, NESHAP, and MACT Standards have been updated, as provided for
under the terms of EPA's previous

delegation of authority actions, to allow the Virginia to implement
and enforce the federal NSPS, NESHAP and MACT standards which
Virginia has adopted by reference as specified in Virginia's revised
regulations 9 VAC 5-50 and 9 VAC 5-60, both effective on February
20, 2019.
    Please note that on December 19, 2008, in Sierra Club v. EPA,\1\
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated certain provisions of the General Provisions of 40
CFR part 63 relating to exemptions for startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM). On October 16, 2009, the Court issued a mandate
vacating these SSM exemption provisions, which are found at 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3rd 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, EPA no longer allows sources the SSM exemption as
provided for in the vacated provisions at 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and
(h)(1), even though EPA has not yet formally removed these SSM
exemption provisions from the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
Because Virginia incorporated 40 CFR part 63 by reference, Virginia
should also no longer allow sources to use the former SSM exemption
from the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 due to the Court's
ruling in Sierra Club vs. EPA.
    EPA appreciates Virginia's continuing NSPS, NESHAP and MACT
standards enforcement efforts, and also Virginia's decision to take
automatic delegation of additional or updated NSPS, NESHAP and MACT
standards by adopting them by reference.

Sincerely,

Cristina Fernandez, Director,
Air and Radiation Division.''

    This notice acknowledges the update of Virginia's delegation of
authority to implement and enforce NESHAP, NSPS, and MACT.

    Dated: September 25, 2019.
Cristina Fernandez,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-21830 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 6142]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IN12-17-000]

Total Gas & Power North America, Aaron Hall and Therese Tran;
Updated Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional

    With respect to an order issued by the Commission on April 28, 2016
in the above-captioned docket,\1\ with the exceptions noted below, the
staff of the Office of Enforcement are designated as non-decisional in
deliberations by the Commission in this docket. Accordingly, pursuant
to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2018), they will not serve as advisors to the
Commission or take part in the Commission's review of any offer of
settlement. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 18 CFR
385.2201 (2018), they are prohibited from communicating with advisory
staff concerning any deliberations in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Total Gas & Power North America, Aaron Hall and Therese
Tran, 155 FERC 61,105 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:

Reudi Abersold
Demetra Anas
Jeffrey Fang
Martin Lawera
Lisa Owings
Eric Primosch
Felice Richter
Derek Shiau
Nicholas Stavlas
Andrew Tamayo
David Zlotnick

    Dated: February 19, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03258 Filed 2-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Does SMCRA provide for/ require groundwater standards? If so, where are they in the regs. and/ or statute? What, in fact, are they? How do they line up with MCLs ( as opposed to effluent limits for surface water)?

No, SMCRA does not establish ground water standards, in the sense of MCLs. SMCRA was enacted to " protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations" ( 30 U. S. C. 1202 sec. 102). The SMCRA based regulations use the individual permits to control the environmental impacts associated with coal mining using specified information requirements and performance standards prescribing the acceptable degree of impact as a result of coal mining activities.

Surface coal mining is very " interactive" with the environment. Which is a kind way to say mining can be disruptive, even destructive to water bearing aquifers as the ground is removed to reach the coal. The permitting process requires companies to state how all problem areas will be controlled during mining and restored through reclamation. SMCRA based regulations emphasize restoring land use, minimizing impacts within the permit and preventing unacceptable impacts outside the permit area, and protecting or replacing water rights ( subject to existing State water rights laws). .

SMCRA provides for ground water protection through: 1) the Federal and State regulations that apply, 2) the determination of probable hydrologic consequences ( PHC) required from the operator as part of the permit application and 3) the cumulative hydrologic impact assessment ( CHIA) done by the coal mining regulatory authority as part of the review process leading to permit approval or permit denial. These hydrologic analyses are required for every permit application.

Some pertinent regulations follow:

30 CFR 816.41( a) " All surface mining and reclamation activities shall be conducted to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas, to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area, to assure the protection or replacement of water rights, and to support approved postmining land uses in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approved permit and the performance standards of this part. The regulatory authority may require additional preventative, remedial, or monitoring measures to assure that material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area is prevented. Mining and reclamation practices that minimize water pollution and changes in flow shall be used in preference to water treatment."

30 CFR 780.21( i)( 2) " The plan shall provide for the monitoring of parameters that relate to the suitability of the ground water for current and approved postmining land uses and to the objectives for protection of the hydrologic balance set forth in paragraph ( h) of this section. It shall identify the quantity and quality parameters to be monitored, sampling frequency, and site locations. It shall describe how the data may be used to determine the impacts of the operation upon the hydrologic balance. At a minimum, total dissolved solids or specific conductance corrected to 25 ° C, pH, total iron, total manganese, and water levels shall be monitored and data submitted to the regulatory authority at least every 3 months for each monitoring location. The regulatory authority may require additional monitoring." 30 CFR 780.21( e) " If the PHC determination required by paragraph ( f) of this section indicates that the proposed mining operation may proximately result in contamination, diminution, or interruption of an underground or surface source of water within the proposed permit or adjacent areas which is used for domestic, agricultural, industrial or other legitimate purpose, then the application shall contain information on water availability and alternative water sources, including the suitability of alternative water sources for existing premining uses and approved postmining land uses."

How do they line up with MCLs ( as opposed to effluent limits for surface water)?

MCLs are reference tools in dealing with water resources, especially drinking quality water. In areas of past and present coal mining, water quality often does not meet the drinking water standards. The specific water criteria for an individual permit is based on collected background data for the local hydrology and water quality that is specific to that coal mining permit. SMCRA based regulations start with the collected local data for hydrology and geology instead of drinking water standards. The specific water standards for each permit would be considered an alternate standard under RCRA based regulations.

Water discharges from a permit must still meet effluent limits set by other State and Federal standards as acknowledged in SMCRA based regulations. But, there are exceptions for remining, western alkaline coal mining, and the background water quality levels.

Some pertinent regulations follow:

30 CFR 780.21( h) The hydrologic reclamation " plan shall be specific to the local hydrologic conditions. It shall contain the steps to be taken during mining and reclamation through bond release to minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas; to prevent material damage outside the permit area; to meet applicable Federal and State water quality laws and regulations; and to protect the rights of present water users. The plan shall include the measures to be taken to: Avoid acid or toxic drainage; prevent, to the extent possible using the best technology currently available, additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow; provide water treatment facilities when needed; control drainage; restore approximate premining recharge capacity and protect or replace rights of present water users. The plan shall specifically address [ any] potential adverse hydrologic consequences identified in the PHC determination  and shall include preventive and remedial measures."

30 CFR 816.42 " Discharges of water from areas disturbed by surface mining activities shall be made in compliance with all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and regulations and with the effluent limitations for coal mining promulgated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency set forth in 40 CFR part 434."

30 U. S. C. 1292 sec. 702( a) " Nothing in this Act shall be construed as superseding, amending, modifying, or repealing  the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( 42 U. S. C. 4321 47), or any of the following Acts or with any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, including, but not limited to   ( 3) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( 79 Stat. 903), as amended ( 33 U. S. C. 1151 1175), the State laws enacted pursuant thereto, or other Federal laws relating to preservation of water quality ."