MEMORANDUM

Subject:	Analysis of the Types of Engines Used to Estimate the CAA
Section 112(k) Area Source Inventory for Stationary Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines

From:		Melanie King, Energy Strategies Group

To:		EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708

Date:		January 5, 2010

Section 112(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA list
categories or subcategories of area sources sufficient to ensure that
area sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the
30 HAP that present the greatest threat to public health in the largest
number of urban areas are regulated.  EPA listed the stationary
reciprocating internal combustion engine area source category under
112(c)(3) and (k) as one of the categories needed to ensure that 90
percent of such area source emissions are regulated.  In response to
comments received on the proposed NESHAP for existing stationary RICE
located at area sources (74 FR 9697), EPA analyzed the types of engines
that were included in the area source category listing for stationary
RICE.  As a result of this analysis, EPA determined that emissions from
existing stationary emergency engines located at residential,
commercial, and institutional facilities were not included in the 1990
baseline emissions inventory that was used as the basis for the listing
of source categories needed to ensure that 90 percent of area source
emissions are regulated.  Residential, commercial,and institutional
emergency stationary RICE include emergency stationary RICE used in
residential establishments such as homes or residences, commercial
establishments such as office buildings, hotels, or stores, or
institutional establishments such as medical centers, research centers,
and institutions of higher education.  Therefore, EPA determined that
these engines at these locations will not be subject to this area source
standard.  A detailed description of the analysis to determine the
engines that were the basis for the inventory is provided below.

Summary of the information used in estimating the 1990 112(k) Area
Source Inventory for Stationary RICE

The emissions for stationary RICE used to estimate the 1990 112(k) area
source inventory were calculated using national estimates for fuel
consumption (in units of  J/yr) of natural gas and distillate oil for
engines used for two purposes:

1) engines used by utilities for electricity generation

2) engines used in industrial applications

EPA extrapolated fuel consumption information for the year 1990 from
estimates of consumption for the years 1978 and 1985 in an EPA report
(Reference 1).  The 1990 fuel consumption estimates were multiplied by a
J/Btu conversion and then multiplied by a lb/MMBtu emission factor in
order to determine the tons emitted per year for each HAP.  This was
done for each fuel type (natural gas and distillate oil).

The EPA report does not have any further description of what type of
engines are included in the fuel consumption data.  The EPA-RTP Library
was able to obtain some of the references for the fuel consumption data.
 None of the references have any information on what size of engines are
included.  The primary references for the 1978/1985 data for the engines
used by utilities for electricity generation do not provide any
additional detail about what engines are included.  The reference for
the 1978 data for the engines used in industrial applications indicates
that the data is for engines used for the following applications:

oil and gas pipelines

natural gas processing plants

oil and gas exploration

crude oil production

natural gas production

agricultural

industrial process

municipal water and sewage

The Library was unable to obtain the reference for the 1985 data for
industrial application engines.

Detailed description of fuel consumption data

The fuel consumption numbers that were used are shown in Table 1.  The
1978 and 1985 fuel consumption data were obtained from Reference 1.  EPA
extrapolated the estimates for 1990 from the 1978 and 1985 estimates.

Table - Fuel consumption (1015 J/yr) for stationary reciprocating
engines

Year	Engines used for electricity generation	Engines used in industrial
applications

	Natural Gas	Distillate Oil	Natural Gas	Distillate Oil

1978	25a	31a	1004d	62d

1985	15b	43b	1093e	73e

1990	26c	34c	1171f	72f

aThe 1978 fuel consumption numbers were determined by subtracting
National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) estimates of 1976 fuel
consumption for utility turbines (Reference 2) from Federal Power
Commission (FPC) data for 1976 fuel consumption by internal combustion
plants owned by utilities (Reference 3).  The 1978 fuel consumption for
electricity generation reciprocating engines was assumed to be equal to
the 1976 numbers “as reciprocating engine generating capacity for the
two years are about equal.”

bThe 1985 fuel consumption estimates for reciprocating engines used by
utilities for electricity generation were determined using NERC
estimated fuel requirements for 1985 (Reference 2).  The NERC estimates
were for fuel consumption for combustion turbines.  The 1985 estimates
were a 40.8% decrease in fuel consumption for gas-fueled turbines from
the 1978 figures.  The EPA report estimated that the fuel consumption
for natural gas-fired engines would decrease by the same percentage as
for turbines (40.8%).  Based on estimates from the FPC (Reference 4),
the EPA report estimated that the total diesel engine capacity would
increase by 2.1% from 1976-1985.  The fuel consumption for
distillate-fired engines would therefore increase by 37.2% from 1978 to
1985 due to the increased capacity and the decreased consumption of
natural gas.

cThe 1990 consumption estimates were “assumed” by Fred Porter of EPA
and it doesn’t say how he “assumed” those numbers.

dThe 1978 fuel consumption data for industrial engines was estimated
from 1971 fuel consumption data from an EPA report (Reference 5) and the
ratios of domestic natural gas and crude oil production figures for
those two years (References 6-8).  The 1971 fuel consumption data was
for engines used in the following applications:

Application	Engine uses listed for application

Oil and gas pipelines

	Natural gas processing plants	drive gas compressors and refrigeration
compressors

Oil and gas exploration	drive electric generators, drawworks, drilling
mud pumps, rotary drilling rigs

Crude oil production	drive beam pumps, gas lift compressors, hydraulic
pump power pumps

Natural gas production	drive repressuring compressors

Agricultural

	drive agricultural water pumps

Industrial process

	drive industrial process equipment and plant air compressors

Municipal water and sewage

	drive municipal water and sewage pumps

eProjected 1985 fuel consumption rates for industrial internal
combustion sources were estimated based on 1985 domestic natural gas and
crude oil supply rates from the Federal Energy Administration (Reference
8).  Assumptions used are that fuel consumption rates are proportional
to domestic natural gas production and that fuel consumption rates for
distillate oil fueled engines are proportional to domestic crude oil
production.  Exception is that fuel consumed by gas reciprocating
engines for crude oil production is assumed to be proportional to the
domestic crude oil production rate.

fFuel consumption for 1990 was extrapolated for industrial engines
assuming that the growth rate in fuel consumption from 1978 to 1985 was
the same as the growth rate from 1985 to 1990.  A compound growth rate
was assumed.  Distribution between gas and oil fired engines was assumed
to be the same in 1990 as in 1978.

References

Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems:
Volume II.  Internal Combustion Sources.  EPA-600/7-79-029c.  February
1979.

Fossil and Nuclear Fuel for Electric Utility Generation Requirements and
Constraints.  1977-1986.  National Electric Reliability Council,
Princeton, New Jersey.  August 1977.

FPC News Release No. 23009.  Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.
March 25, 1977.

FPC News Release No. 22673.  Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.
October 15, 1976.

McGowin, C.R.  Stationary Internal Combustion Engines in the United
States.  Report prepared by the Shell Development Co. for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Report No. R2-73-210.  April 1973.
 120 p.  NTIS PB-221 457.

1974 Gas Facts.  American Gas Association.  Arlington, VA.  1975.

Dupres, W.G., Jr. and J.S. Corsentino.  United States Energy through the
Year 2000 (Revised) Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior.
December 1975.

National Energy Outlook, Federal Energy Administration.  February 1976.

 1990 Emissions Inventory of Forty Potential Section 112(k) Pollutants,
Supporting Data for EPA’s Section 112(k) Regulatory Strategy.  May 21,
1999.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register: September 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 46814-46816]
[DOCID:fr11se09-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60613; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rules 5210 (Publication of Transactions and Quotations) and 5220
(Offers at Stated Prices) Into the Consolidated Rulebook

September 2, 2009.
    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 August 18, 2009, 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. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3310 (Publication of
Transactions and Quotations), NASD Rule 3320 (Offers at Stated Prices),
IM-3310 (Manipulative and Deceptive Quotations) and IM-3320 (firmness
of Quotations) as FINRA rules in the consolidated FINRA rulebook
without material changes. The proposed rule change would combine NASD
Rule 3310 and IM-3310 into FINRA Rule 5210 and would combine NASD Rule
3320 and IM-3320 into FINRA Rule 5220 in the consolidated FINRA
rulebook.
    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, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 3310 (Publication of Transactions and Quotations), NASD Rule 3320
(Offers at Stated Prices), IM-3310 (Manipulative and Deceptive
Quotations) and IM-3320 (firmness of Quotations) with minor changes as
FINRA rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed FINRA Rule 5210

    NASD Rule 3310 prohibits members from publishing or circulating, or
causing to be published or circulated, any communication that purports
to report any transaction as a purchase or sale of any security unless
such member believes that such transaction was a bona fide purchase or
sale of such security. The rule also prohibits members from publishing
or circulating, or causing to be published or circulated, any
communication that purports to quote the bid price or asked price for
any security, unless such member believes that such quotation
represents a bona fide bid for, or offer of, such security.
    IM-3310 provides that it would be inconsistent with NASD Rules 2110
(Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade),\4\ 3310
(Publications of Transactions and Quotations), and 2120 (Use of
Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices) \5\ for a member
to: (1) Publish or circulate or cause to be published or circulated, by
any means whatsoever, any report of any securities transaction or of
any purchase or sale of any security unless such member knows or has
reason to believe that such transaction was a bona fide transaction,
purchase or sale, or (2) to publish or circulate or to cause to be
published or circulated, by any means whatsoever, any quotation for any
security without having reasonable cause to believe that such quotation
is a bona fide quotation, is not fictitious and is not published or
circulated or caused to be published or circulated for any fraudulent,
deceptive or manipulative purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NASD Rule 2110 has been transferred into the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2010.
    \5\ NASD Rule 2120 has been transferred into the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 3310 was adopted on June 6, 1939, and there have been no
subsequent amendments to the rule. IM-3310 was adopted in 1960 and also
has not been amended since adoption. More recently, FINRA reminded
members that directly enter (or that permit customers or non-members to
enter) orders into trading systems that they are required to take steps
to ensure that such orders are free of errors and are representative of
bona fide transaction and quotation activity consistent with their
obligations under NASD Rule 3310 and IM-3310.\6\ Therefore, members
have been reminded that they must have in place a supervisory system
and written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure that
orders are not entered in error or in a manner inconsistent with FINRA
rules, including NASD Rule 3310 and IM-3310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice to Members 04-66 (NASD Reminds Member Firms of
Their Obligations to Ensure the Accuracy and Integrity of
Information Entered into Order-Routing and Execution Systems)
(September 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt the requirements set forth in NASD Rule
3310 and IM-3310 as FINRA Rule 5210 with minor changes to update the
content and cross-references. Specifically, FINRA is proposing minor
changes to delete the exception for nominal quotations that are clearly
identified as such because, under current practice, nominal quotations
are not published and a modifier does not exist to identify nominal
quotations. In addition, FINRA is proposing to incorporate the
substance of IM-3310 as Supplementary Material to FINRA Rule 5210 with
minor changes to simplify and update the cross-references within the
rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As stated in SR-FINRA-2008-021, with the exception of the
Arbitration Code, the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook will no longer
contain Interpretive Materials (``IMs''); rather, the IMs either
will become stand alone rules or will be integrated into existing
rule text or moved to a ``Supplementary Material'' section at the
end of a rule. (In some instances, an IM also may be eliminated as
outdated or otherwise unnecessary.) The ``Supplementary Material''
will set forth the same type of legally binding guidance and
additional information that IMs provide today and will be filed with
the SEC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58176 (July 16,
2008); 73 FR 42845 (July 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed FINRA Rule 5220

    NASD Rule 3320 provides that no member shall make an offer to buy
from or sell to any person any security at a stated price unless such
member is prepared to purchase or sell, as the case may be, at such
price and under such conditions as are stated at the time of such offer
to buy or sell. NASD Rule 3320 was adopted on June 6, 1939. There have
been no subsequent amendments to the rule.
    As adopted in 1965, related IM-3320 restricts ``backing away'' from
quotations, which disrupts the normal operation of the over-the-counter
market. IM-3320 provides that it shall be deemed conduct inconsistent
with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable
principles of trade if a member ``backs away'' from its quotation.
    In addition, the interpretive material provides that, in order to
ensure the integrity of quotations, every member has an obligation to
correctly identify the nature of its quotations when they are supplied
to others. Further, each member furnishing quotations must ensure that
it is adequately staffed to respond to inquiries during the normal
business hours of such member. IM-3320 recognizes that members change
inter-dealer quotations constantly in the course of trading, but
further states that, under normal circumstances where the member is
making a firm trading market in any security, it is expected at least
to buy or sell a normal unit of trading in the quoted stock at its then
prevailing quotations unless clearly designated as ``not firm'' or
``firm for less than a normal unit of trading'' when supplied by the
member. In addition, IM-3320 recognizes that a member's quote may not
be firm at times where contemporaneous transactions or substantial
changes in inventory might require dealers to quote a ``subject
market'' temporarily.
    FINRA proposes to adopt NASD Rule 3320, without change, into the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 5220 and to incorporate the
substance of IM-3320, with minor changes, as Supplementary Material to
FINRA Rule 5220. The minor changes to IM-3320 will: (1) Update
terminology (e.g., references to ``wire quotations'' and the ``National
Quotation Bureau Sheets'') to reflect technological advancements and
current practice

since the rule's enactment, and (2) update the ``subject market''
language to make it consistent with the language used in the SEC's Firm
Quote Rule (Rule 602 of Regulation NMS), specifically that, if at the
time an order for the purchase or sale of the quoted security is
presented the member is in the process of effecting a transaction and
immediately after the completion of such transaction communicates a
revised quotation size, such member shall not be obligated to purchase
or sell the quoted security in an amount greater than such revised
quotation size.
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that adopting the proposed rules as
part of the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook will continue to enhance market
quality by providing for increased reliability and usefulness of
quotation information. FINRA notes that the proposed rules have been in
operation for numerous decades and believes that they have since proven
effective in achieving the statutory mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-055 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-055. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the 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-2009-055 and should be
submitted on or before October 2, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21883 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72976-72979]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28727]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0206; FRL-9920-20-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin;
Nitrogen Oxide Combustion Turbine Alternative Control Requirements for
the Milwaukee-Racine Former Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2014, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) submitted revisions to the limits found in its
nitrogen oxides (NOX) combustion turbine rule for the
Milwaukee-Racine area formerly nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
standard. This revision is contained in ``2013 Wisconsin Act 91--Senate
Bill 371,'' which provides for alternative NOX requirements,
subject to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval on a case-by-
case basis, to determine whether these alternative limits satisfy the
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA proposed to approve this rule as a revision to
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) on April 30, 2014, and received
adverse comments. EPA subsequently issued a supplemental proposal on
October 9, 2014, to address the issue of whether the SIP revision
satisfies certain anti-backsliding requirements of the CAA. EPA
received an adverse comment on this supplemental proposal on October
23, 2014. After duly considering both this comment and the adverse
comments received in response to the April 30, 2014, proposal, EPA is
approving this rule because the process established will ensure that
modified sources meet RACT and the revision meets the anti-backsliding
requirements of the CAA. This final action addresses all of these
adverse comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0206. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal, at
(312) 886-6052 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 866-6052<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this final approval?
II. What are EPA's response to comments?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final approval?

    A detailed background for this approval is contained in the April
30, 2014, direct final rule (79 FR 24337), which can also be found in
the docket for this action.
    Under Wisconsin's current SIP-approved NOX control
program, NR 428, existing simple cycle combustion turbines larger than
84 megawatts (MW) that undergo a major modification after February 2001
must meet the emission limitations set forth in s. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a.
and 2.a. This provision sets NOX emission limits of 12 or 25
parts per million dry volume (ppmdv) at 15% oxygen (O2), on
a 30-day rolling basis, when firing natural gas or distillate oil,
respectively.
    The WDNR originally set the NOX emission limitations for
combustion turbines, in NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a., based on the
mistaken assumption that dry low NOX (DLN) combustion
technology was feasible and available for both new and modified
combustion turbines and that such technology was capable of meeting the
established emission limitations. As previously stated, the emission
limitations in NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. apply to simple cycle
combustion turbines that are larger than 84 MW (of which there are only
four in the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area) and undergo a major
modification. These four combustion turbines are the model 11N turbines
that were manufactured by ASEA Brown-Boveri (ABB) and are operated by
We Energies at its Paris generating facility. These four combustion
turbines were designed and manufactured to use water injection instead
of DLN technology to control NOX emissions. Use of water
injection limits NOX emissions to the alternate levels
provided by Wisconsin Act 91 (25 ppmdv, for natural gas and 65 ppmdv
for oil), but cannot achieve the emission limits required by NR
428.04(2)(g), Wis. Admin. Code (12 and 25 ppmdv). These combustion
turbines are all located in an area that is designated attainment for
both the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, although there is a monitor in
the area with a design value that exceeds the 2008 ozone standard for
the most recent three-year period for which certified data are
available (2011-2013).
    For reasons described in the April 30, 2014, direct final rule (79
FR 24337), WDNR has determined that the previously-approved SIP
NOX emission limits for simple cycle combustion turbines
that undergo a major modification in the Milwaukee-Racine area are not
feasible for the four existing combustion turbines to which these
limits would apply. EPA agrees with this determination. The Wisconsin
legislature adopted s. 285.27(3m), which became effective on December
15, 2013, to establish feasible RACT limits in the event of a major
modification. EPA finds that these limits constitute RACT and issued
both a direct final rule and a proposed rule to approve the rule into
the SIP.

    In response to EPA's rulemaking, the Sierra Club and Midwest
Environmental Defense Center provided comments objecting to the
proposed revision. One of their comments stated that because two of We
Energies' units had undergone modifications in 2002, they were subject
to the lower limits of s. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. and, as a
result, the SIP revision was relaxing the limits for these units and
that ``EPA has done no analysis of whether this increase would result
in problems maintaining compliance with ozone standards or 1-hour
NO2 standards.''
    In response to this comment, EPA withdrew the direct final rule and
published a supplemental proposal on October 9, 2014, explaining its
basis for concluding that the SIP revision satisfies the anti-
backsliding requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA. The Midwest
Environmental Defense Center submitted an adverse comment in response
to this supplemental proposal.

II. What are EPA's responses to comments?

    A. On May 30, 2014, David Bender provided the following comment on
behalf of the Sierra Club and Midwest Environmental Defense Center.
    Comment--The proposed SIP revision is an unlawful backslide that
increases allowable emissions. Contrary to EPA's suggestion that Wis.
Stat. section 285.27(3m) ``will not increase allowable NOX
emission rates above current levels for the affected combustion
turbines,'' that the provisions of section 285.27(3m) ``are
significantly more stringent than the ROP emission limitations'' and
``do not relax current allowable emission requirements,'' the statute
is clearly a backslide from the limits that currently apply under the
approved Wisconsin SIP.
    The Paris Generating Station emission units P01 and P04 were
modified in June 2002. Therefore, from June 2002, to the present, those
units were subject to the 12 ppmdv and 25 ppmdv limits in NR
428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. when burning natural gas and oil,
respectively. WDNR's submission incorrectly suggests that currently-
applicable NOX limits are higher than the proposed 25 ppm
limit, when in fact the currently applicable NOX limits are
significantly lower than 25 ppm. The limits that EPA proposes to adopt
would increase the allowable emissions from units P01 and P04 by more
than 100 percent. This is an unlawful backslide. Moreover, EPA has done
no analysis of whether this increase would result in problems
maintaining compliance with ozone standards or 1-hour NO2
standards.
    EPA response--EPA notes the point raised by the commenters that,
although the rule is not expected to result in any units operating at
higher emissions rates than in the past, the rule would increase the
emissions limits applicable to these sources under the SIP.\1\ Section
110(l) of the CAA provides in part that, ``The Administrator shall not
approve a revision of a [SIP] if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other
applicable requirement of [the Act].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted above, EPA believes that the emissions rates in the
SIP are technically infeasible for these sources to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to avoid any potential for interference with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen dioxide, Wisconsin has
identified contemporaneous, offsetting emission reductions of
NOX from a different emission source to compensate for the
change in the SIP limits for NOX proposed in the rule at
issue.\2\ We explained in the supplemental proposal for this action (79
FR 61042) how Wisconsin calculated the appropriate amounts of offsets,
and additional information on the source of the offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As the offset is for NOX emissions, the analysis
is equally applicable to the NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wisconsin submitted to EPA 54.6 tons per year of excess
NOX emission credits generated by the South Oak Creek (SOC)
Unit 5 generating facility to be used to address potential backsliding
under this SIP revision. Wisconsin also notes that a total of 61,970
tons of NOX was emitted in the Milwaukee-Racine ozone area
from all sources in 2011. The emission reductions of 54.6 tons per year
being addressed here for anti-backsliding represents less than 0.07% of
that total. Taking these offsets into account, EPA has concluded that
approval of this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the ozone or NO2 NAAQS, or any other
applicable CAA requirement.
    B. On October 23, 2014, Karen J.T. Jansen, on behalf of the Midwest
Environmental Defense Center, submitted the following comment in
response to EPA's supplemental proposed rule.
    Comment--The proposed rule constitutes impermissible backsliding
under CAA Section 110(l) and the EPA should not approve the proposed
rule.
    The Paris Generating Station emission units P01 and P04 underwent a
major modification in June 2002, which changed those units'
NOX emission limits to 12 ppmdv when burning gas and 25
ppmdv when burning oil. The proposed rule would raise these limits to
25/65 ppmdv. This is a huge increase. According to the WDNR, the amount
of NOX at issue is only .07% of the ozone area's total;
however, each increase in NOX emission limits contributes to
SIP attainment or non-attainment. Increasing these NOX
limits by over 100% contributes, however incrementally, to unlawful
backsliding.
    While the WDNR has identified the SOC Unit 5 as an offsetting
option, it assumes that the Paris Generating Station was meeting the 25
ppmdv limits, while it actually regularly exceeded 25 ppmdv. The
station is currently shut down due to a compliance order from the WDNR,
so its actual emissions are unknown. Based on its past history, it is
likely that the Paris Generating Station will exceed the calculated 25
ppmdv. Because of the unlawful backsliding, the EPA must reject the
proposed rule.
    EPA response--As discussed above, EPA agrees that the rule would
increase the emissions limits applicable to these sources under the
SIP. In order to avoid any potential for interference with attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen oxide, Wisconsin has
identified contemporaneous, offsetting emission reductions of
NOX from a different emission source to compensate for the
change in the SIP limits for NOX proposed in the rule at
issue.
    Wisconsin has identified enforceable emission reductions to be used
in offsetting the 54.6 tons per year of excess emissions in order to
offset any backsliding. These emission reductions are generated by
enforceable emission limitations currently in place for the SOC Unit 5
electric generating facility, which operates in the Milwaukee-Racine
former ozone nonattainment area.
    There is no guarantee that any source will always comply with its
SIP limit. However, if the Paris units exceed their SIP limits, they
become subject to an enforcement action. Furthermore, Wisconsin has
documented that the Paris combustion turbines have been in compliance
with the 25 ppmdv limit since at least May 2009.
    C. On May 30, 2014, David Bender also provided the following
comment on behalf of the Sierra Club and Midwest Environmental Defense
Center.
    Comment--EPA relies on a best available control technology (BACT)
determination by WDNR in 2008 for the Concord Generating Station to
find that

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology is too costly to be the
basis for a RACT limit for the Paris plant. The only basis for finding
25/65 ppm is an appropriate RACT limit is the Concord BACT
determination. But, because the Concord BACT determination was wrong,
there is no basis to find that the 25/65 ppm limit constitutes RACT.
The commenter goes on to criticize Wisconsin's BACT determination both
for incorrectly determining the cost-effectiveness of an SCR to be
$8,236 per ton of NOX removed and also for its criteria in
evaluating BACT.
    EPA response--The purpose of our referring to the Concord BACT
determination process was to explain how the State identified the issue
that the emission limits in the approved SIP, which were based on DLN
technology, were adopted in error. Based on the information submitted
by the State, we agree that DLN is not feasible at this time for the
four combustion turbines to which the limits that were promulgated in
error might apply. This action is not reviewing or approving the BACT
process for the Concord facility.
    Once the State identified the infeasibility of the standards in the
existing SIP, a determination of RACT was made. For purposes of meeting
the RACT requirement of the CAA, the BACT determination is not
dispositive as the two standards are different. RACT is ``reasonably
available control technology'' and BACT is ``best available control
technology.'' For purposes of determining whether the revised limits
are RACT, the State looked at emission limits that apply to similar
turbines at other facilities. None of those facilities were subject to
limits tighter than those the State of Wisconsin has adopted and the
commenter does not identify any sources subject to tighter RACT limits.
Moreover, we note that before a turbine would be subject to the newly
adopted, less stringent limits, the source would need to demonstrate
that it was not technologically or economically feasible to meet the
tighter limits and EPA would need to approve such demonstration.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Section 1.285.27(3m), into Wisconsin's
NOX SIP.
    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier
than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. However,
APA section 553(d) allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication for a rule that ``that grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Since today's action
relieves a restriction (i.e., NOX emission limits of 12 or
25 ppmdv at 15% O2, on a 30-day rolling basis) that
prohibited these turbines from operating, EPA is making this action
effective immediately upon publication.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175, nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Nitrogen oxides.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(133) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (133) On February 24, 2014, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted revisions to its nitrogen oxide (NOX)
combustion turbine rule for the Milwaukee-Racine former nonattainment
area for the 1997 ozone standard. This revision is contained in ``2013
Wisconsin Act 91--Senate Bill 371'' which allows alternative
NOX emission requirements for simple cycle combustion
turbines, that undergo a modification on or after February 1, 2001, if
dry low NOX combustion is not technically or economically
feasible. This revision is approvable because it provides for
alternative NOX requirements subject to EPA approval on a
case-by-case basis and therefore satisfies the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act).
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Wisconsin statute, Section
285.27(3m), Exemption from Standards for Certain Combustion Turbines,
as revised by 2013 Wisconsin Act 91 enacted December 13, 2013. (A copy
of 2013 Wisconsin Act 91 is attached to Section 285.27(3m) to verify
the enactment date.)

[FR Doc. 2014-28727 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 72089]
[DOCID:fr26no08-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

American Custom Components, Inc., Creditgroup Com, Inc. (n/k/a
Tradex Global Financial Services, Inc.), Frederick Brewing Co., and
Infinicall Corp., Respondents; Order of Suspension of Trading

November 24, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
American Custom Components, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Creditgroup Com, Inc. (n/k/a Tradex Global Financial Services, Inc.)
because it has not filed any periodic reports since August 12, 1999.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Frederick Brewing Co. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Infinicall Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended December 31, 2005.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on November 24, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EST on December 8, 2008.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28253 Filed 11-24-08; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 978]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00037]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-58]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory
activities. 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 involved and must be received on or before January 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2010-
0287 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments digitally.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Andrea Copeland, ARM-208, Office of Rulemaking, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 267-8081.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 31, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0287.
    Petitioner: Bombardier Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.981(a)(3).
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an amendment to
Exemption No. 10175 to enable additional time beyond December 17, 2012,
to demonstrate compliance with fuel tank ignition prevention
requirements for its Bombardier Model CL-600-2E25 airplanes.

[FR Doc. 2013-00037 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41735-41737]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-405-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare An
Environmental Assessment For the Proposed Texas Gas Storage Expansion
Project Phase 3 and Request For Comments on Environmental Issues

July 23, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Texas Gas Storage Expansion
Project, involving construction and operation of facilities by Texas
Gas Transmission L.L.C. (Texas Gas) in Hopkins, Muhlenberg, and Webster
Counties, Kentucky. This EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on August 23, 2007.
    With this notice, we \1\ are asking other federal, state, local,
and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with
respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a Texas Gas representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project facilities. The
pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Gas seeks authorization to install one 5,488 horsepower (hp)
compressor and retire in place two existing 2,000 hp compressor units
at its existing Midland III Compressor Station in Muhlenberg County,
Kentucky. Texas Gas also proposes minor modifications at its existing
Slaughter's Compressor Station in Webster County, Kentucky. No change
in horsepower is proposed at the Slaughter's Compressor Station at this
time. Further, Texas Gas would: construct about 11 miles of 30-inch-
diameter looping pipeline in Hopkins and Muhlenberg Counties, Kentucky;
construct 2,900 feet of extension to its existing 16-inch-diameter
storage lateral

(E-9 pipeline); drill seven new horizontal injection/withdrawal wells
at its existing Midland Storage Field; and add related piping to
connect these wells with its lateral system (ranging from 8 to 12
inches in diameter and 150 to 3,000 feet in length). A general project
location map is included in Appendix A.
    In addition, Texas Gas would construct new pig launcher/receiver
facilities: within its existing Hanson Compressor Station; to the west
of its Midland III Compressor Station; and at each end of its modified
E-9 pipeline.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed Texas Gas Storage Expansion Project
Phase 3 would affect a total of about 202.5 acres during construction.
Following construction, about 108.8 acres would be allowed to revert to
its previous conditions. Disturbance associated with aboveground
facilities would permanently disturb 4.1 acres of land.
    Texas Gas proposes to construct its 30-inch-diameter pipeline in a
90-foot-wide construction right-of-way and well lines within a 75-foot-
wide construction right-of-way. Texas Gas would maintain a 50-foot-wide
permanent right-of-way for operation and maintenance of the pipelines.

The EA Process

    We are preparing the EA to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) which requires the Commission to take into account
the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping''. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
Notice, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to
address in the EA. All comments received will be considered during the
preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; public
interest groups; interested individuals; affected landowners;
newspapers and libraries in the project area; and the Commission's
official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be
allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all
comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the
Commission.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal (including
alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1;
     Reference Docket No. CP07-405-000;
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before August 23, 2007.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``eFiling'' link and the link

to the User's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you
would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive.
Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by
clicking on ``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.'' You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is
considered a ``Comment on Filing.''

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If
you want to become an intervenor, you must file a motion to intervene
according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. We
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern. If you do not return the attached form (Appendix B), you will
be removed from the Commission's environmental mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the

``eLibrary'' link, select ``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu,
enter the selected date range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last
three digits (i.e., CP07-405), and follow the instructions. For
assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-
866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to

the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14744 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 31857]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5727-000]

Nelson, W.T. III; Notice of Filing

May 28, 2008.
    Take notice that on May 27, 2008, W.T. Nelson, III, filed an
application for authority of hold Interlocking Positions, pursuant to
section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act and Part 45 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
    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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 9, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12368 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P