15
                                      16

Table H-4. Total Annual Emission Unit Costs for Work Practices at II&S Nonpoint Sources
                                Nonpoint Source
                              Emission Unit Costs

                                 Annual Labor
                                   Capital
                    Annual Operating and Annualized Capital
                                 Total Annual

BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $2,493
                                   $169,958
                                   $22,841
                                   $25,334

BF Planned Openings
                                    $4,084
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $4,084

BF Bell Leaks
                                    $1,382
                                   $281,387
                                   $145,462
                                   $146,844

BF Casthouse
                                    $3,814
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                   $43,631

BOPF Shop
                                    $5,736
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                   $45,553

BF Iron Beaching
                                    $1,112
                                      $0
                                    $3,028
                                    $4,139

Slag Handling & Storage
                                   $11,921
                                      $0
                                    $4,145
                                   $16,066

                           Total Emission Unit Costs
                                   $30,541
                                   $541,389
                                   $255,110
                                   $285,652

Table H-5. Total Costs for Work Practices at II&S Nonpoint Sources by Facility
                                    Source
                               Equipment Costs$

                             Overall Annual Costs

                                    Capital
                                  Annualized
                                     Labor

                               CC-BurnsHarbor-IN
BF Slips
                                   $225,110
                                   $30,253
                                    $4,987
                                   $35,240
BF Openings
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $8,168
                                    $8,168
BF Leaks
                                   $450,219
                                   $49,457
                                    $2,764
                                   $52,221
BF Casthouse
                                   $90,044
                                   $79,634
                                    $7,628
                                   $87,262
BOP Shop
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                    $5,736
                                   $45,553
Beaching
                                      $0
                                    $3,924
                                    $2,223
                                    $6,147
Slag Pit
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                   $23,841
                                   $23,841
Total Costs
                                   $810,395
                                   $203,085
                                   $55,347
                                   $258,432
                                CC-Cleveland-OH
BF Slips
                                    $2,251
                                     $303
                                    $4,987
                                    $5,289
BF Openings
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $8,168
                                    $8,168
BF Leaks
                                   $281,387
                                   $145,462
                                    $1,271
                                   $146,733
BF Casthouse
                                   $90,044
                                   $79,634
                                    $7,628
                                   $87,262
BOP Shop
                                   $90,044
                                   $79,634
                                   $11,472
                                   $91,106
Beaching
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
Slag Pit
                                      $0
                                    $8,291
                                   $23,841
                                   $32,132
Total Costs
                                   $463,726
                                   $313,324
                                   $57,367
                                   $370,691
                                CC-Dearborn-MI
BF Slips
                                   $56,277
                                    $7,563
                                    $2,493
                                   $10,057
BF Openings
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $3,553
                                    $3,553
BF Leaks
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
BF Casthouse
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                    $3,814
                                   $43,631
BOP Shop
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                    $5,736
                                   $45,553
Beaching
                                      $0
                                    $1,962
                                    $1,112
                                    $3,073
Slag Pit
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                   $11,921
                                   $11,921
Total Costs
                                   $146,321
                                   $89,159
                                   $28,629
                                   $117,788
                              CC-IndianaHarbor-IN
BF Slips
                                   $172,209
                                   $23,144
                                    $7,480
                                   $30,624
BF Openings
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                   $12,252
                                   $12,252
BF Leaks
                                   $562,774
                                   $290,924
                                    $2,764
                                   $293,688
BF Casthouse
                                   $135,066
                                   $119,451
                                   $11,442
                                   $130,893
BOP Shop
                                   $90,044
                                   $79,634
                                   $11,472
                                   $91,106
Beaching
                                      $0
                                    $9,083
                                    $3,335
                                   $12,418
Slag Pit
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                   $35,762
                                   $35,762
Total Costs
                                   $960,093
                                   $522,236
                                   $84,507
                                   $606,743
                               CC-Middletown-OH
BF Slips
                                   $112,555
                                   $15,127
                                    $2,493
                                   $17,620
BF Openings
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $2,042
                                    $2,042
BF Leaks
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $1,382
                                    $1,382
BF Casthouse
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                    $3,814
                                   $43,631
BOP Shop
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                    $5,736
                                   $45,553
Beaching
                                      $0
                                    $3,028
                                    $1,112
                                    $4,139
Slag Pit
                                      $0
                                    $4,145
                                   $11,921
                                   $16,066
Total Costs
                                   $202,599
                                   $101,934
                                   $28,499
                                   $130,433
                                USS-Braddock-PA
BF Slips
                                   $225,110
                                   $30,253
                                    $4,987
                                   $35,240
BF Openings
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $8,168
                                    $8,168
BF Leaks
                                   $562,774
                                   $290,924
                                    $2,764
                                   $293,688
BF Casthouse
                                   $90,044
                                   $79,634
                                    $7,628
                                   $87,262
BOP Shop
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                    $4,704
                                   $44,521
Beaching
                                      $0
                                    $6,056
                                    $2,223
                                    $8,279
Slag Pit
                                      $0
                                    $8,291
                                   $23,841
                                   $32,132
Total Costs
                                   $922,950
                                   $454,975
                                   $54,314
                                   $509,289
                                  USS-Gary-IN
BF Slips
                                   $450,219
                                   $60,506
                                    $9,973
                                   $70,480
BF Openings
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $8,168
                                    $8,168
BF Leaks
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
BF Casthouse
                                   $180,088
                                   $159,268
                                   $14,035
                                   $173,303
BOP Shop
                                   $90,044
                                   $79,634
                                    $9,407
                                   $89,041
Beaching
                                      $0
                                    $7,847
                                    $4,446
                                   $12,294
Slag Pit
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                   $35,762
                                   $35,762
Total Costs
                                   $720,351
                                   $307,256
                                   $81,792
                                   $389,048
                              USS-GraniteCity-IL
BF Slips
                                   $225,110
                                   $30,253
                                    $4,987
                                   $35,240
BF Openings
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $4,084
                                    $4,084
BF Leaks
                                   $281,387
                                   $145,462
                                    $1,382
                                   $146,844
BF Casthouse
                                   $90,044
                                   $79,634
                                    $7,017
                                   $86,652
BOP Shop
                                   $45,022
                                   $39,817
                                    $4,704
                                   $44,521
Beaching
                                      $0
                                    $6,056
                                    $2,223
                                    $8,279
Slag Pit
                                      $0
                                    $8,291
                                   $23,841
                                   $32,132
Total Costs
                                   $641,563
                                   $309,513
                                   $48,238
                                   $357,751

Table H-6. Reduction Cost Effectiveness for Work Practices at Nonpoint Sources by Facility
                                Nonpoint Source
                              Total Annual Costs

                              PM ($/ton removed)
                              HAP ($/ton removed)
                               CC-BurnsHarbor-IN
BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $7,128
                                   $192,643
BF Planned Openings
                                    $2,554
                                   $69,031
BF Bell Leaks
                                     $160
                                    $4,335
BF Casthouse Fugitives
                                     $871
                                   $23,541
BOPF Shop Fugitives
                                     $98
                                    $3,064
BF Iron Beaching
                                   $92,433
                                  $2,498,199
Slag Handling & Storage
                                     $317
                                    $9,320
                               All UFIP Sources
                                     $265
                                    $7,718
                                CC-Cleveland-OH
BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $1,070
                                   $28,915
BF Planned Openings
                                    $2,554
                                   $69,031
BF Bell Leaks
                                    $1,433
                                   $38,720
BF Casthouse Fugitives
                                    $2,307
                                   $62,363
BOPF Shop Fugitives
                                      --
                                      --
BF Iron Beaching
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
Slag Handling & Storage
                                     $439
                                   $12,912
                               All UFIP Sources
                                    $1,673
                                   $46,460
                                CC-Dearborn-MI
BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $4,068
                                   $109,952
BF Planned Openings
                                    $2,222
                                   $60,057
BF Bell Leaks
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
BF Casthouse Fugitives
                                     $859
                                   $23,215
BOPF Shop Fugitives
                                      --
                                      --
BF Iron Beaching
                                   $92,433
                                  $2,498,199
Slag Handling & Storage
                                      --
                                      --
                               All UFIP Sources
                                    $2,145
                                   $57,986
                              CC-IndianaHarbor-IN
BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $6,194
                                   $167,409
BF Planned Openings
                                    $3,831
                                   $103,546
BF Bell Leaks
                                    $2,259
                                   $61,058
BF Casthouse Fugitives
                                    $1,114
                                   $30,108
BOPF Shop Fugitives
                                     $199
                                    $6,208
BF Iron Beaching
                                   $186,740
                                  $5,047,022
Slag Handling & Storage
                                     $312
                                    $9,182
                               All UFIP Sources
                                     $732
                                   $21,646
                               CC-Middletown-OH
BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $7,128
                                   $192,643
BF Planned Openings
                                    $1,277
                                   $34,515
BF Bell Leaks
                                      $8
                                     $227
BF Casthouse Fugitives
                                     $950
                                   $25,669
BOPF Shop Fugitives
                                     $577
                                   $18,021
BF Iron Beaching
                                   $124,493
                                  $3,364,681
Slag Handling & Storage
                                     $335
                                    $9,866
                               All UFIP Sources
                                     $382
                                   $10,796
                                USS-Braddock-PA
BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $7,128
                                   $192,643
BF Planned Openings
                                    $2,554
                                   $69,031
BF Bell Leaks
                                    $1,604
                                   $43,349
BF Casthouse Fugitives
                                      --
                                      --
BOPF Shop Fugitives
                                      --
                                      --
BF Iron Beaching
                                   $124,493
                                  $3,364,681
Slag Handling & Storage
                                     $941
                                   $27,676
                               All UFIP Sources
                                    $2,259
                                   $61,809
                                  USS-Gary-IN
BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $7,128
                                   $192,643
BF Planned Openings
                                    $1,277
                                   $34,515
BF Bell Leaks
                                      $0
                                      $0
BF Casthouse Fugitives
                                      --
                                      --
BOPF Shop Fugitives
                                     $367
                                   $11,463
BF Iron Beaching
                                   $92,433
                                  $2,498,199
Slag Handling & Storage
                                      --
                                      --
                               All UFIP Sources
                                     $926
                                   $27,162
                              USS-GraniteCity-IL
BF Unplanned Openings
                                    $7,128
                                   $192,643
BF Planned Openings
                                    $1,277
                                   $34,515
BF Bell Leaks
                                    $1,733
                                   $46,843
BF Casthouse Fugitives
                                    $2,332
                                   $63,021
BOPF Shop Fugitives
                                      --
                                      --
BF Iron Beaching
                                   $124,493
                                  $3,364,681
Slag Handling & Storage
                                     $590
                                   $17,367
                               All UFIP Sources
                                    $1,939
                                   $53,686


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 61560]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Akron Barberton Cluster Railway

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0144]

    The Akron Barberton Cluster Railway (ABC) seeks a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal hours of service law
(49 U.S.C. Chapter 211; HSL). Specifically, ABC requests relief from 49
U.S.C. 21103(a)(4), which states that a train employee may not be
required, allowed to remain, or go on duty after that employee has
initiated an on-duty period each day for 6 consecutive days unless that
employee has had at least 48 hours off duty at the employee's home
terminal.
    ABC currently has eight train and engine service employees who
typically work three assignments commencing at either 5 a.m., 6 a.m.,
or 7 a.m. Each assignment consists of 5 days in duration and averages 7
hours on duty. Specifically, the schedules include a Monday through
Friday shift beginning at 5 a.m.; a Sunday through Thursday shift
beginning at 6 a.m.; and a Tuesday through Saturday shift beginning at
7 a.m. The employees have set hours, set days off and do not layover at
away from their home locations. ABC is requesting that employees may
work 6 consecutive days followed by 24 hours off duty. ABC included
with its waiver request, documentation indicating that its employees
unanimously support its request for relief. ABC's entire petition may
be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov under the docket number listed
above.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2010-0144) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at  http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2010.
Robert C. Lauby
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-24998 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 71885-71888]
[DOCID:fr19de07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  2

December 11, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC08-20-000.
    Applicants: RockGen Energy LLC; RockGen OL-1, LLC; RockGen OL-2,
LLC; RockGen OL-3, LLC; RockGen OL-4, LLC.
    Description: RockGen Energy, LLC et al submits a joint application
for acquisition of ownership from the Interest Holders of an electric
generation facility in Dane County, Wisconsin.
    Filed Date: 12/06/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC08-21-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Broadway Gen
Funding, LLC; Sugar Creek Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Northern Indiana Public Service Co and Broadway Gen
Funding, LLC et al submits an application and related exhibits
requesting authorization for a transaction to transfer a generating
facility.
    Filed Date: 12/06/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC08-22-000.
    Applicants: Bicent (California) Power LLC; Bicent (California)
Malburg LLC.
    Description: Bicent (California) Power LLC et al requests
authorization for its acquisition of the Malburg Generating Station
pursuant to Amended and Restated Purchase and Sale Agreement to be
entered with the City of Vernon, CA.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG08-19-000.
    Applicants: Sweetwater Wind 5 LLC.
    Description: Sweetwater Wind 5 LLC submits a notice of self-
certification of its status as an exempt wholesale generator.
    Filed Date: 12/06/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG08-20-000.

    Applicants: South Trent Wind LLC.
    Description: South Trent Wind LLC submits a notice of self-
certification of its status as an exempt wholesale generator.
    Filed Date: 12/06/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG08-21-000.
    Applicants: Forward Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-5025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG08-22-000.
    Applicants: Lookout Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-5026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER98-830-016 ER03-719-007; ER03-720-007; ER03-721-
007.
    Applicants: Millennium Power Partners, LLC, New Athens Generating
Company, LLC; New Covert Generating Company, LLC; New Harquahala
Generating Company, LLC.
    Description: New Athens Generating Co, LLC et al submits an
amendment to the 10/25/07 et al filing of a non-material Change in
Status.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1346-002.
    Applicants: White Creek Wind I, LLC.
    Description: White Creek Wind I LLC submits its revised Third
Revised Sheet 1 of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071206-0228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1103-003.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits
Service Agreement 1151 with an updated effective date pursuant to
FERC's 10/31/07 Letter Order under ER07-1103.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071204-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1199-001.
    Applicants: Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC submits notice of
non-material change in status related to a change in its upstream
ownership under ER07-1199.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071204-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1408-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp re-files the 1968 Operating Agreement in
compliance with FERC's 11/21/07 letter order.
    Filed Date: 12/06/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-55-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
et al submit proposed revisions to the Congestion Management Process of
their Joint Operating Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-112-002.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Co submits the corrected Attachment 2 to
its 12/4/07 filing of revised sheets to its Open Access Transmission
Tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-274-001.
    Applicants: Citadel Energy Strategies, LLC.
    Description: Citadel Energy Strategies LLC submits an amendment to
its Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate, Waivers and Blanket
Authorization, designated as Rate Schedule FERC 1 and on12/10/07 submit
its second amendment to this filing.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007; 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0001; 20071211-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-299-000.
    Applicants: Snowflake White Mountain Power, LLC.
    Description: Snowflake White Mountain Power, LLC submits an
application for market-based authorization, certain waivers and blanket
authorizations and request for expedited treatment.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-300-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co. submits an unexecuted
Small Generator Interconnection Agreement etc with County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-301-000.
    Applicants: Covanta Fairfax, Inc.
    Description: Covanta Fairfax, Inc submits the Second Amendment to
First Amended and Restatement of Power Purchase and Operating Agreement
with Virginia Electric and Power Co dba Dominion Virginia Power.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-302-000; TS08-1-000.
    Applicants: Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC.
    Description: Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC submits an Amended and
Restated Transmission Service Agreement with Peetz Table Wind Energy,
LLC, et al, and a request for waivers of certain Standard of Conduct
regulations.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-303-000.
    Applicants: Williams Gas Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Williams Gas Marketing, Inc submits a Notice of
Succession by reason of a change in name to Williams Power Co.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-304-000.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power Co submits First Revised Sheet
15 et al to FERC Rate Schedule 110.
    Filed Date: 12/06/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-305-000.

    Applicants: Phoenix Energy Trading, LLC.
    Description: Phoenix Energy Trading LLC submits a notice of
cancellation of FERC Electric, Original Volume 1, to become effective
12/15/07.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-306-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Electric Power Company submits First
Revised Sheet 13 et al to FERC Electric Rate Schedule 153.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-307-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Co submits their First Revised Sheet
13 et al to FERC Electric Rate Schedule 152 et al.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-308-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Company submits First Revised Sheet
14 et al to its FERC Rate Schedule 154.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-309-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Power Company.
    Description: Kentucky Power Company submits First Revised Sheet 10
et al to its FERC Rate Schedule 51.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-310-000.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power Company submits First Revised
Sheet 15 et al to its FERC Electric Rate Schedule 108.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-311-000.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power Company submits its First
Revised Sheet 15 et al to its FERC Electric Rate Schedule 111.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-312-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits its
compliance filing involving one rate change to its Transmission Owner
Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 5.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-313-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc on behalf of Southwestern
Public Service Co submits revised tariff sheets.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0247.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-314-000.
    Applicants: Bicent (California) Malburg LLC.
    Description: Bicent (California) Malburg LLC submits an application
for Market-Based Rate Authority and request for waivers etc.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071210-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES08-7-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits an application
requesting authorization to secure the obligation of its wholly-owned
indirect subsidary, Colstrip Lease Holdings LLC under a $100,000,000
credit facility etc.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ES08-8-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Service Company.
    Description: Form 523--Joint Application for Authorization to Issue
Securities of FirstEnergy Service Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/06/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071206-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ES08-10-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Form 523--Request for Permission to Issue Securities
of Portland General Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071207-5123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 28, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24593 Filed 12-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Conference Call with Kevin McKenney of National Demolition Association (NDA), Nicholas Rojas of Brandenburg, Zac Clark of North American Dismantling Corp and EPA on Risk Management under TSCA Section 6, Aliphatic Cyclic Bromide Cluster (HBCD)

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On April 21, 2021, EPA held a conference call with Kevin McKenney, Director of Government Affairs at NDA, Nicholas Rojas, Environmental Manager at Brandenburg, and Zac Clark, President of North American Dismantling Corp to discuss the information EPA is seeking for the HBCD rulemaking and the need for input from small government entities. EPA presented an overview of the HBCD Risk Evaluation, an explanation of the planned rulemaking, and technical background.

Attendees
EPA:
Susan Slotnick
Sarah Cox

National Demolition Association:
Kevin McKenney

Brandenburg:
Nicholas Rojas

North American Dismantling Corp:
Zac Clark


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22538-22539]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14792-000]

Maysville Pumped Storage, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On July 1, 2016, Maysville Pumped Storage, LLC filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project
located on the Ohio River in Mason County, Kentucky. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder
priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would be developed in three phases. In the
final phase the following project would consist of: (1) A 15-foot-high,
40-foot-long concrete intake structure on the Ohio River; (2) two 10-
foot-diameter, 1,050-foot-long steel pipes to supply water to the
project; (3) a 135-foot-high, 500-foot-long earth fill or roller-
compacted, concrete embankment dam surrounding; (4) an upper reservoir
with a surface area of 20 acres and a storage capacity of 875 acre-
feet; (5) five 12.5-foot to 18 foot-diameter, 2,800-foot-long
penstocks; (6) a powerhouse 100-feet-below the lower reservoir
containing five pump/generating units with a total capacity of 500
megawatts; (7) a lower reservoir established within an existing
underground mine space with a surface area of 212 acres and a storage
capacity of 9,540 acre-feet; and (8) a 10,500-foot-long, 230 kilo-volt
transmission line to a point of interconnection with the PJM system.
The project would have an

estimated average annual generation of 1,296,480 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Matthew Shapiro, Gridflex Energy, LLC, 1210
W. Franklin St., Ste. 2, Boise ID 83702.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Chris Casey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
8577.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14792-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14792) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 9, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09800 Filed 5-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33561-33563]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12384]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77875; File No. SR-ISE-2016-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to Market Wide Risk
Protection

May 20, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On March 17, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to introduce new activity-based
risk protection functionality. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on April 6, 2016.\3\ No comment
letters were received in response to this proposal. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77489 (Mar. 31,
2016), 81 FR 20004 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposed to introduce two activity-based risk
protection measures that will be mandatory for all members: (1) The
``Order Entry Rate Protection,'' which prevents members from entering
orders at a rate that exceeds predefined thresholds,\4\ and (2) the
``Order Execution Rate Protection,'' which prevents members from
executing orders at a rate that exceeds their predefined risk settings
(together, ``Market Wide Risk Protection''). The Exchange will announce
the implementation date of the proposed rule in a circular to be
distributed to members prior to implementation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange stated that it will initiate the Order Entry
Rate Protection pre-open, but in a manner that allows members time
to load their orders without inadvertently triggering the
protection. The Exchange further noted that it will establish and
communicate the precise initiation time via circular and prior to
implementation. See Notice, supra note 3, at 20004 n.4.
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 20004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 714(d), ``Market Wide Risk Protection,''
the Exchange's trading system (the ``System'') will maintain one or
more counting programs on behalf of each member that will track the
number of orders entered and the number of contracts traded on ISE or,
if chosen by the member, across both ISE and its affiliate, ISE Gemini,
LLC (``ISE Gemini'').\6\ Members may also use multiple counting
programs to separate risk protections for different groups established
within the member.\7\ The counting programs will maintain separate
counts, over rolling time periods specified by the member, for each
count of: (1) The total number of orders entered in the regular order
book; (2) the total number of orders entered in the complex order book
with only options legs; (3) the total number of orders entered in the
complex order book with both stock and options legs; (4) the total
number of contracts traded in regular orders; and (5) the total number
of contracts traded in complex orders with only options legs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Members may set different risk parameters for their trading
activity on each exchange, or they may set risk parameters that
apply to their trading across both ISE and ISE Gemini. See proposed
Rule 714(d).
    \7\ The Exchange stated that it will explain how members can go
about setting up risk protections for different groups (e.g.,
business units) in a circular issued to members. See Notice, supra
note 3, at 20004-05 n.7.
    \8\ See proposed Rule 714(d). The Exchange clarified that a
member's allowable order rate for the Order Entry Rate Protection
will be comprised of parameters (1) to (3), while the allowable
contract execution rate for the Order Execution Rate Protection will
be comprised of parameters (4) and (5). The Exchange further
explained that contracts executed on the agency and contra-side of a
two-sided crossing order will be counted separately for the Order
Execution Rate Protection. See Notice, supra note 3, at 20005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, members will have the discretion to
establish the applicable time period for each of the counts maintained
under the Market Wide Risk Protection, provided that the selected
period is within minimum and maximum time parameters that will be
established by the Exchange and announced via circular.\9\ By contrast,
the Exchange's proposal does not establish minimum or maximum values
for any of the order entry or execution parameters described in (1)
through (5) above. Nevertheless, the Exchange will establish default
values \10\ for the time period, order entry, and contracts traded
parameters in a circular to be distributed to members. The Exchange
represented that such default values will apply only to members that do
not submit their own parameters for the Market Wide Risk Protection
measures.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. The Exchange stated that it anticipated setting these
minimum and maximum time parameters at one second and a full trading
day, respectively. See Notice, supra note 3, at 20005 n.9.
    \10\ See proposed Rule 714(d); see also Notice, supra note 3, at
20005.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposed to use separate counts for regular
orders, complex options orders,\12\ and complex orders with a stock
component,\13\ as it believed that members may want to have different
risk settings for these instruments. If the Market Wide Risk Protection
is triggered based on any count, however, proposed Rule 714(d) states
that the triggered action (discussed below) will be taken across the
entire market--with respect to all products traded in both simple and
complex instruments and across ISE (or,

if set by the member, across ISE and ISE Gemini).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange explained that the contract execution count
for complex orders with only options legs will be the sum of the
number of contracts executed with respect to each leg. Id.
    \13\ Complex orders that contain a stock component will not be
included as part of the complex order execution count. The Exchange
stated its belief that the separate components of stock-option
orders (i.e., options components executed in contracts and stock
components executed in shares) could not be combined in a way that
would provide a meaningful measure of risk exposure. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 20005 n.10.
    \14\ Proposed Rule 714(d)(1); see also Notice, supra note 3, at
20005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Rule 714(d), the System will trigger the Market Wide
Risk Protection when it determines that the member has either (1)
entered a number of orders exceeding its designated allowable order
rate for the specified time period, or (2) executed a number of
contracts exceeding its designated allowable contract execution rate
for the specified time period.\15\ If the member's thresholds have been
exceeded in either simple or complex instruments, the Market Wide Risk
Protection will be triggered and the System will automatically reject
all subsequent incoming orders entered by the member on ISE or, if set
by the member, across both ISE and ISE Gemini.\16\ In addition, if the
member has opted in to this functionality, the System will
automatically cancel all of the member's existing orders.\17\ The
Market Wide Risk Protection will remain engaged until the member
manually (e.g., via email) notifies the Exchange to enable the
acceptance of new orders.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.; see also proposed Rule 714(d)(1). Specifically, after
a member enters or executes an order, the System will look back over
the specified time period to determine whether the member has
exceeded the relevant thresholds. See Notice, supra note 3, at
20005. In the Notice, the Exchange provided examples illustrating
how the Market Wide Risk Protection functionality would work both
for order entry and order execution protections. See Notice, supra
note 3, at 20005-06.
    \16\ According to the Exchange, members that set different risk
parameters for ISE and ISE Gemini will only have their orders
rejected on the exchange whose threshold was exceeded. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 20005 n.11.
    \17\ Proposed Rule 714(d)(2).
    \18\ Proposed Rule 714(d)(3). Members who have not opted to
cancel all existing orders under proposed Rule 714(d)(2), however,
will still be able to interact with their existing orders entered
before the Market Wide Risk Protection was triggered. For instance,
such members may send cancel order messages and/or receive trade
executions for those orders. Id.; see also Notice, supra note 3, at
20005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act \19\
and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\20\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules
of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed activity-based
order protections will provide an additional tool to members to assist
them in managing their risk exposure.\22\ Specifically, the Commission
believes that the Market Wide Risk Protection functionality may help
members to mitigate the potential risks associated with entering and/or
executing a level of orders that exceeds their risk management
thresholds that may result from, for example, technology issues with
electronic trading systems. Further, the Commission notes that other
exchanges have established risk protection mechanisms for members and
market makers that are similar in many respects to ISE's proposal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange currently provides members with limit order
price protections that reject orders priced too far outside of the
Exchange's best bid or offer. See ISE Rule 714(b)(2).
    \23\ See, e.g., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
Rule 519A (``Risk Protection Monitor''); BATS BZX Exchange, Inc.
Rule 21.16 (``Risk Monitor Mechanism'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 714(d) imposes a mandatory obligation on ISE members
to utilize the Market Wide Risk Protection functionality. The
Commission notes that, although the Exchange will establish minimum and
maximum permissible parameters for the time period values, members will
have discretion to set the threshold values for the order entry and
order execution parameters.\24\ If members do not independently set
such parameters, they will be subject to the default parameters
established by ISE.\25\ While the Commission believes that the
Exchange's proposed rule provides members flexibility to tailor the
Market Wide Risk Protection to their respective risk management needs,
the Commission reminds members to be mindful of their obligations to,
among other things, seek best execution of orders they handle on an
agency basis and consider their best execution obligations when
establishing parameters for the Market Wide Risk Protection or
utilizing the default parameters set by ISE.\26\ For example, an
abnormally low order entry parameter, set over an abnormally long
specified time period should be carefully scrutinized, particularly if
a member's order flow to ISE contains agency orders. To the extent that
a member chooses sensitive parameters, a member should consider the
effect of its chosen settings on its ability to receive a timely
execution on marketable agency orders that it sends to ISE in various
market conditions. The Commission cautions brokers considering their
best execution obligations to be aware that the agency orders they
represent may be rejected as a result of the Market Wide Risk
Protection functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange has represented that it anticipates that the
minimum and maximum values for the applicable time period will be
initially set at one second and a full trading day, respectively,
which the Commission believes gives members wide latitude in
establishing the applicable time periods. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 20005 n.9.
    \25\ Proposed Rule 714(d).
    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37619A (Sept. 6,
1996), 61 FR 48290, at 48323 (Sept. 12, 1996) (Order Execution
Obligations adopting release); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37537-8 (June 29,
2005) (Regulation NMS adopting release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, ISE determined not to establish minimum and
maximum permissible settings for the order entry and order execution
parameters in its rule and indicated its intent to set a minimum and
maximum for the time period parameters that provide broad discretion to
members (i.e., one second and a full trading day, respectively).\27\ In
light of these broad limits, the Commission expects ISE to periodically
assess whether the Market Wide Risk Protection measures are operating
in a manner that is consistent with the promotion of fair and orderly
markets, including whether the default values and minimum and maximum
permissible parameters for the applicable time period established by
ISE continue to be appropriate and operate in a manner consistent with
the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 20005 n.9; see also supra note
24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act
for ISE to offer its Market Wide Risk Protection across both ISE and
its affiliate, ISE Gemini, as such functionality could assist members
in managing and reducing inadvertent exposure to excessive risk across
both of these markets if the member desires to avail itself of that
feature. Further, the Commission notes that it previously approved
ISE's proposal to offer cross-market risk protections for market maker
quotes, and approval of the cross-market application of the Market Wide
Risk Protection functionality is consistent with that prior
approval.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See ISE Rule 804(g); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 73147 (Sept. 19, 2014), 79 FR 57639 (Sept. 25, 2014)
(SR-ISE-2014-09) (approval order).

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\29\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2016-08) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12384 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56668]
[DOCID:fr28se05-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-480-001]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Revised
Compliance Filing

September 16, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 9, 2005, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) submitted a revised compliance filing to
correct a wording error contained in its July 1, 2005 filing to comply
with the Commission's Order No. 587-S issued May 9, 2005.
    Transco states that copies of the filing were served on parties on
the official service list.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5227 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


March 2, 2004 Page 1 of 4 Minutes Registration Review Workgroup Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee February 2, 2004 Meeting Crystal Mall 2, Arlington VA Participants EPA: Jay Ellenberger, Susan Lewis, Richard Dumas, Carol Stangel, Philip Ross, Tony Kish, TJ Wyatt, Vivian Prunier PPDC Workgroup: Cindy Baker ( via teleconference), Wally Ewart ( via teleconference), Brigid Klein ( substituting for Steve Kellner), Therese Murtagh, Julie Spagnoli, Ray McAllister, Janine Rynczak ( substituting for Warren Stickle), and Sue Crescenzi Public attendees: Rebecca Freeman, American Farm Bureau; Mary Beth Polley, Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, Phil Zahodiakin, Pesticide Insider; Robert M. Sielaty, Wright and Sielaty.

Introduction. Jay Ellenberger described the agenda for the meeting. The group agreed that it would discuss issues one, two and five at today's meeting.

Minutes of January 2, 2004 Teleconference. The draft minutes were amended to add or correct participants' names and affiliations.

Issue One. What action( s) initiates a pesticide registration review? Before expending resources in a pesticide's registration review, the Agency would want to know whether registrants intend to support the pesticide and each of its uses. Other stakeholders might want to know this as well. The Agency is seeking advice on options for getting this type of information up front in a way that is efficient for both the Agency and the public.

Options include: ° Agency publishes schedule. Agency notifies registrants by letter that it has commenced its review. No action required from stakeholders at this point. Stakeholders do not provide input until the results of the review are available.

° Agency publishes schedule. Agency identifies documents that it will evaluate in the review and places this information ( i. e., either a list of documents or the documents themselves) in the docket for registrant and stakeholder review.

° Agency publishes schedule. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency March 2, 2004 Page 2 of 4 receives notification from registrants regarding their intent to support the pesticide's registration review. In their evaluation of this option, stakeholders said that payment of annual maintenance fees is sufficient demonstration of intent to support the registration. Accordingly, submission of additional notification would not be unnecessary.

The workgroup supported the second option. The workgroup discussed the documentation that the Agency might provide under this option. The information might include copies of labels and/ or a list of registered uses; the RED or TRED for the pesticide; and copies of the most recent risk assessments for each scientific discipline. There was brief mention of including alist of data requirements for the registered uses of the pesticide and a list of studies that had been submitted, but these ideas were not pursued.

The workgroup acknowledged that the Agency might have to upgrade its information management systems to support this activity.

Issue Two. Early submission of test data and other information to support a pesticide's registration review. The Agency wants to receive pertinent information early in the registration review process in order to avoid redoing its risk assessments. Such rework delays completion of the pesticide's review and ties up scarce resources.

Options include: ° Stakeholders take no action until they have the results of the Agency's review.

° When it initiates a registration review, the Agency issues a Data Call in Notice requiring the submission of any existing information that is pertinent to the pesticide's registration review. This information might include studies that were submitted to foreign governments in support of uses not registered in the US or in response to additional requirements imposed by other governments, risk assessments prepared by other governments, or information on use and usage.

° After the Agency has assembled the information it will review   but before it has evaluated it   convene a " SMART" meeting with stakeholders to discuss the Agency's need for additional information and whether stakeholders possess information responsive to the Agency's needs.

° After the Agency has publically identified the information it has assembled for a pesticide's registration review, registrants and other stakeholders respond by providing a list of studies or other information that is pertinent to the registration review.

Because of the novelty of the last option, workgroup members needed to consult with their constituencies. Questions included: What items belong on such a list? How does a registrant decide whether to list an item? Are there confidentiality or other issues related to releasing such a list? March 2, 2004 Page 3 of 4 The workgroup then discussed early submission of stakeholder's information that might pertain to the use and usage of a pesticide. The Agency would like to know   before it conducts a risk assessment   whether actual usage rates are lower than the labeled rates. Stakeholders want to avoid assembling such information until it is reasonable certain that this information is needed to preserve the use of the pesticide. However, if stakeholders see what the Agency will be evaluating in the registration review, they can decide for themselves if additional information should be provided to support a pesticide or a particular use.

USDA could need several years' lead time if it is going to include a particular pesticide in its PDP or NAS programs. Growers also needed a long lead time to identify their issues and get organized.

Issue Five. What is a registration review decision? In a pesticide's registration review, the Agency would determine whether a pesticide meets the requirements for registration under FIFRA section 3( c)( 5). Additionally, FIFRA section 3( g)( 2)( A) stipulates that EPA shall use its authority under FIFRA section 3( c)( 2)( B) to require submission of data when such data are necessary for registration review. The workgroup has discussed a number of possible scenarios that might represent the completion of registration review.

The workgroup acknowledged that a DCI for data needed for a risk assessment could not be an endpoint for the registration review. In such cases, completion of the registration review would be deferred until the data are submitted and evaluated. The workgroup considered what a " needs a DCI" determination would be called. The Agency's workgroup had been using the term " interim decision," but it is possible that other terms could be used to characterize such cases. Another concern was that additional issues might arise during while a registration review decision was pending and that these issues might further delay completion a registration review.

Action Items: ° Ray McAllister volunteered to lead the write up of Issue One.

° Cindy Baker, Julie Spagnoli, and Sue Crescenzi to explore the issues relating to having registrants submit bibliographies ( an option in Issue Two). Therese Murtagh volunteered to work with them.

° Sue Crescenzi has the lead for writing up Issue Five.

° TJ Wyatt will prepare an e mail asking workgroup members to consider costs and benefits of the options for each of the three issues.

Schedule for Workgroup Meetings and Teleconferences. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday March 2. However, it may be necessary to change the date of this meeting   possibly to the preceding day. March 2, 2004 Page 4 of 4


[Federal Register: January 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3714]
[DOCID:fr22ja08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-299-000]

Snowflake White Mountain Power, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 15, 2008.
    Snowflake White Mountain Power, LLC (Snowflake) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with accompanying tariff.
The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy,
capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Snowflake also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Snowflake requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18
CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by Snowflake.
    On January 11, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Snowflake, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2007).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
February 11, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Snowflake is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Snowflake, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Snowflake's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-964 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


March 11, 1991 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: New Source Review ( NSR) Program Transitional Guidance FROM: John S. Seitz, Director Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( MD 10)

TO: Addressees The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( 1990 Amendments) make numerous changes to the NSR requirements of the prevention of significant deterioration ( PSD) and nonattainment area programs. The 1990 Amendments create new and expanded nonattainment areas, extend PSD coverage to current Class I area boundaries, and mandate a PSD exemption for certain hazardous air pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) intends to propose by September of this year a regulatory package that will implement these and other changes to the NSR provisions. Final adoption of these revised regulations is projected for August 1992. In the interim period between passage of the 1990 Amendments and adoption of the Agency's final regulations, EPA expects that numerous issues regarding the 1990 Amendments will arise. This memorandum sets forth the Agency's position on the most important of these transitional issues involving the NSR program.

The Regional Offices should send this guidance document to their States. Questions from States and applicants concerning specific issues and cases should be directed to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. If you have any general questions, please contact Mr. Michael Sewell of the New Source Review Section at FTS 629 0873 or ( 919) 541 0873.

Attachment Addressees Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, Regions I, IV, and VI Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II Director, Air Management Division, Regions III and IX Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, and X cc: J. Calcagni R. Campbell W. Laxton 2 E. Lillis J. Rasnic L. Wegman J. Weigold NSR Contacts CORRECTIONS TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: Two errors in the document as issued on March 11, 1991 have been corrected in this copy. On page 2 on the last line, " CFC 112" is changed to correctly read " CFC 113". On page 8 in item 4, the cite " Section 172( b)" is changed to correctly read " Section 173( b)". 3 OAQPS: AQMD: PPB: NSRS: Sewell/ Allman( 541 0873/ MU) 03/ 07/ 91 disk: Sewell# 2; GS26. MEM bcc: Sect. file New Source Review ( NSR) Transitional Guidance Toxics and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAPS) Issues 1. Section 112 Hazardous Air Pollutants are No Longer Considered Regulated Pollutants Under Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD), but NESHAPS Still Apply Under the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act ( Act) and regulations issued thereunder, the PSD requirements of the Act apply to all " major" new sources and " major" modifications, i. e., those exceeding certain annual tonnage thresholds [ see 40 CFR 52.21( b)( 1)( i) and ( b)( 2)( i)]. Typically, new sources and modifications become subject to PSD because they exceed the specified tonnage threshold for a criteria pollutant, i. e., a pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard ( NAAQS) has been established under section 109 of the Act. Once a new source or modification is subject to PSD, the PSD requirements apply to every pollutant subject to regulation under the Act that is emitted in " significant" quantities ( or, in the case of a major modification, for which there is a significant net emissions increase) [ see 40 CFR 52.21( b)( 23) and ( i)( 2)]. Under the 1977 Amendments, best available control technology ( BACT) and other PSD requirements apply not only to emissions of criteria pollutants but also to emissions of pollutants regulated under other provisions of the Act, such as section 111 or 112. This regulatory structure was altered by the 1990 Amendments.

Title III of the 1990 Amendments added a new section 112( b)( 6) that excludes the hazardous air pollutants listed in section 112( b)( 1) of the revised Act ( as well as any pollutants that may be added to the list) from the PSD ( and other) requirements of Part C. Thus, because they are on the initial Title III hazardous air pollutants list, the following pollutants, which had been regulated under PSD because they were covered by the section 112 NESHAPS or section 111 new source performance standards ( NSPS) program, are now exempt from Federal PSD applicability:

! arsenic ! asbestos ! benzene ( including benzene from gasoline)

! beryllium ! hydrogen sulfide ( H 2 S)

! mercury ! radionuclides ( including radon and polonium)

! vinyl chloride. 2 The Title III exemption applies to final Federal PSD permits ( i. e., those issued in final form and for which administrative appeals, if any, under 40 CFR 124.19 have been exhausted) issued on or after the date of enactment of the 1990 Amendments ( November 15, 1990). For Federal PSD permit applications now under review by either an EPA Regional Office or a delegated State, PSD permit requirements do not apply to the pollutants exempted by Title III. For Federal PSD permits containing PSD requirements for the pollutants exempted by Title III issued on or after November 15, 1990, the permittee may request a revision ( e. g., removal of a BACT limit for benzene) to their PSD permit to reflect the Title III exemption from Federal PSD applicability.

Note that pursuant to section 116 and the preservation clause in section 112( d)( 7) of the amended Act, States with an approved PSD program may continue to regulate the Title III hazardous air pollutants now exempted from Federal PSD by section 112( b)( 6) if the State PSD regulations provide an independent basis to do so. These State rules would remain in effect unless a State revised them to provide similar exemptions. Additionally, the Title III pollutants continue to be subject to any other applicable State and Federal rules; the exclusion is only for Part C rules.

Finally, section 112( q) retains existing NESHAPS regulations by specifying that any standard under section 112 in effect prior to the date of enactment of the 1990 Amendments shall remain in force and effect after such date unless modified as provided in the amended section. Therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 61.05 to 61.08, including preconstruction permitting requirements, for new and modified sources subject to existing NESHAPS regulations are still applicable.

In summary, the pollutants currently regulated under the Act as of March 1991 that are still subject to Federal PSD review and permitting requirements are:

! carbon monoxide ! nitrogen oxides ! sulfur dioxide ! particulate matter and PM 10 ! ozone ( volatile organic compounds)

! lead ( elemental)

! fluorides ! sulfuric acid mist ! total reduced sulfur compounds ( including H 2 S)

! CFC's 11, 12, 113, 114, 115 3 ! halons 1211, 1301, 2402 ! municipal waste combustor ( MWC) acid gases, MWC metals and MWC organics.

2. Hazardous Air Pollutants that are Regulated as One Component of a More General Pollutant Under Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act are Still Regulated Any hazardous air pollutants listed in section 112( b)( 1) which are regulated as constituents of a more general pollutant listed under section 108 of the Act are still subject to PSD as part of the more general pollutant, despite the exemption in Title III. For example, volatile organic compounds ( VOC's) ( a term which includes benzene, vinyl chloride, methanol, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, and thousands of other compounds) are still regulated as VOC's ( but not as individual pollutants such as benzene, etc.) under the PSD regulations because these pollutants are ozone precursors, not because they are air toxics. Also, particulates ( including lead compounds and asbestos) are still regulated as particulates ( both PM 10 and particulate matter) under the PSD regulations. Lead compounds are exempt from Federal PSD by Title III, but the elemental lead portion of lead compounds ( as tested for in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 12) is still considered a criteria pollutant subject to the lead NAAQS and still regulated under PSD.

3. Toxic Effect of Unregulated Pollutants Still Considered in BACT Analysis Based on the remand decision on June 3, 1986 by the EPA Administrator in North County Resource Recovery Associates ( PSD Appeal No. 85 2), the impact on emissions of other pollutants, including unregulated pollutants, must be taken into account in determining BACT for a regulated pollutant. When evaluating control technologies and their associated emissions limits, combustion practices, and related permit terms and conditions in a BACT proposal, the applicant must consider the environmental impacts of all pollutants not regulated by PSD. Once a project is subject to BACT due to the emission of nonexempted pollutants, the BACT analysis should therefore consider all pollutants, including Title III hazardous air pollutants previously subject to PSD, in determining which control strategy is best. 4 PSD Class I Boundary Issues 1. PSD Applicability Coverage Changes as Class I Area Boundaries Change Sections 162( a) and 164( a) of the amended Act specify that the boundaries of areas designated as Class I must now conform to all boundary changes at such parks and wilderness areas made since August 7, 1977 and any changes that may occur in the future. The EPA does not believe that Congress intended to create the turmoil which would occur if this redesignation required the modification of permits issued between August 7, 1977 and November 15, 1990, or the resubmission and reevaluation of complete permit applications submitted prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Thus, for this reason, applications considered complete prior to November 15, 1990 should be processed as submitted without regard to the new Class I area boundaries. Exceptions to this general policy are in the areas of increment consumption and air quality related values ( including visibility), as discussed below.

For an applicant who submitted a complete PSD application prior to November 15, 1990, if all other PSD requirements are met, a permit may be issued based on the Class I analysis as submitted in the application, unless the reviewing authority finds, on a case by case basis, that additional analysis is needed from the applicant to address suspected adverse impacts or increment consumption problems due to the expanded boundaries of the Class I areas. Any existing increment violations in the new boundaries of Class I areas must be remedied through a SIP revision pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166( a)( 3).

The PSD applications not considered complete before November 15, 1990 must consider the impact of both existing sources and the new or modified source on the Class I areas as defined by the 1990 Amendments. Thus, the complete application must consider the impacts on the entire Class I area based upon the boundaries in existence on the date of submittal of a complete application; as before, if a Class I boundary changes before the permit is issued, the reviewing authority may find, on a case by case basis, that additional analysis is needed from the applicant to address suspected adverse impacts or increment consumption problems due to expanded Class I area boundaries. 5 NSR Nonattainment Issues 1. NSR Construction Permit Requirements in Nonattainment Areas In many States, the existing approved Part D permit program by its terms covers all designated nonattainment areas in the State, so a Part D permit program will automatically apply to the new and expanded nonattainment areas which are established under provisions of Title I of the 1990 Amendments. Thus, until new rules are adopted for these new or expanded nonattainment areas, States should apply the requirements of their existing approved Part D permit program. However, in other States, a Part D program may be limited to specified areas and does not apply to new or expanded areas. In these areas, States must implement a transitional permitting program until their existing Part D programs are revised to meet the requirements of the 1990 Amendments and expanded to cover all nonattainment areas in the State. Otherwise, both the goals of Part D and Congress' intent in creating new or expanded nonattainment areas will be frustrated.

The EPA regulations already provide for these new or expanded designated nonattainment areas because the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling ( 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S) governs permits to construct between the date of designation and the date an approved Part D plan is made applicable to the new nonattainment area [ see 40 CFR 52.24( k)]. Until a State's new Part D plan is approved by EPA, if a State wishes to issue a permit for a major stationary source or major modification in a new or expanded designated nonattainment area, the State should comply with the requirements of Appendix S. Among other things, Appendix S requires a major source seeking to locate in a nonattainment area to ( 1) meet the lowest achievable emission rate for such source, ( 2) provide offsets from existing sources in the area, and ( 3) show that the offsets will provide a positive net air quality benefit ( see 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, section IV. A). The EPA believes that in order to carry out the intent of Appendix S, offsets should be required for sources in all categories and in all instances should be calculated on a tons per year basis ( see 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, section IV. C).

Of course, neither Appendix S nor the existing NSR rules incorporate the NSR changes mandated by Title I of the 1990 Amendments such as lower source applicability thresholds, increased emissions offset ratios, new definitions of major stationary source, and ( for ozone nonattainment areas) requirements for nitrogen oxides ( NOx) 6 control and NOx emissions offsets. However, the 1990 Amendments require States to submit to EPA new NSR permit program rules for ozone nonattainment areas by November 15, 1992; for PM 10 nonattainment areas by June 30, 1992; and for most carbon monoxide ( CO) nonattainment areas no later than 3 years from the date of the nonattainment designation. The EPA interprets this as an expression of congressional intent not to mandate that States adhere to the more stringent Title I NSR requirements in nonattainment areas during the time provided for State implementation plan ( SIP) development. Thus, for NSR permitting purposes in nonattainment areas, the new NSR requirements in Title I are not in effect until the States, as required by the Act, adopt NSR permit program rules to implement the Title I provisions. In addition, EPA encourages any State having adequate authority for early implementation of the NSR changes to do so as soon as possible.

If States fail to submit to EPA the new NSR permit program rules for nonattainment areas by the deadlines in the amended Act, EPA intends to impose in these nonattainment areas a Federal implementation plan ( FIP) embodying such requirements. Currently, EPA intends to propose revised NSR regulations at 40 CFR Part 52 that would implement the new Title I NSR requirements under a FIP in a State if that State's revised NSR rules to implement Title I are not submitted in approvable form to EPA and made effective within the State by the deadlines established by the 1990 Amendments.

The area designation in effect on the date of permit issuance by the reviewing agency determines which regulations ( Part C or Part D) apply to that permit. In other words, the PSD permit regulations apply to pollutants for which the area is designated as attainment or unclassifiable, and the NSR nonattainment permit regulations apply to pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment [ see 40 CFR 51.166( i)( 3) and ( 5); and 40 CFR 52.21( i)( 3) and ( 5)]. Under these regulations, a PSD permit for a pollutant cannot be issued in an area that is designated nonattainment for that pollutant. For the situation where a source receives a PSD or other permit prior to the date the area is designated as nonattainment, the permit remains in effect as long as the source commences construction within 18 months after the date of nonattainment designation of the area, does not discontinue construction for more than 18 months, and completes construction within a reasonable time [ see 40 CFR 52.24( g) and ( k)]. Although the PSD regulations provide for extension of these deadlines, no extension would be appropriate where the area has been designated as nonattainment following permit issuance. Accordingly, if 7 any of these construction provisions are not met, the PSD permit or other permit will not be extended, and the source ( if subject to the nonattainment provisions) must obtain a nonattainment permit prior to commencing ( or continuing) construction.

The 1990 Amendments create some new and expanded nonattainment areas by operation of law. Other nonattainment area changes are expected as the States and EPA complete the designation process prescribed in amended section 107( d). Because of these provisions, the dates areas switch from attainment to nonattainment for NSR purposes vary by pollutant. However, except for the two instances where the Amendments create changes by operation of law, the new designations and expanded boundaries will not be effective for NSR purposes until EPA promulgates the changes. The promulgations will be announced in the Federal Register.

Congress create new PM 10 nonattainment areas through designations that became effective upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments on November 15, 1990 [ see section 107( d)( 4)( B)]. Specifically, Congress designated Group I areas and areas where violations of the PM 10 NAAQS had occurred prior to January 1, 1989 as nonattainment. The EPA published a list of these PM 10 areas in a Federal Register notice ( see 55 FR 45799, October 31, 1990; see also 52 FR 29383, August 7, 1987). The EPA plans to publish a notice in the Federal Register listing these areas as nonattainment in the near future, but they are already considered nonattainment areas as of November 15, 1990.

Similarly, the 1990 Amendments expand by operation of law some CO and ozone nonattainment areas. However, these changes did not become effective with passage but rather on December 30, 1990. The specifics are as follows:

Section 107( d)( 4)( A)( iv) of the amended Act provides that, with the exception explained below, ozone and CO nonattainment areas located within metropolitan statistical areas ( MSA) and consolidated metropolitan statistical areas ( CMSA) which are classified as serious, severe, or extreme for ozone or as serious for CO are automatically expanded to include the entire MSA or CMSA. This expansion became effective by operation of law 45 days after enactment unless the Governor submitted a notice by this deadline of the State's intent to seek a modification of the expanded boundaries pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 107( d)( 4)( A)( v). So if a 8 State did not provide this notice, the nonattainment boundaries of all serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas in the State and all serious CO areas in the State expanded to include the entire MSA or CMSA on December 30, 1990. If a State did provide timely notice, the Administrator has up to 14 months from enactment to resolve the State's challenge. Until EPA promulgates a resolution of the State's challenge, the old boundaries remain in effect.

Except for these two cases where new or expanded boundaries have been created by operation of law, nonattainment area changes will not be considered effective until the changes are promulgated by the EPA. As to most new areas or expansions of previously designated nonattainment areas, this will occur 240 days after enactment [ see section 107( d)( 4)( A)( i) and ( ii)]. Newlycreated ozone and CO nonattainment areas will be considered part of a designated nonattainment area for NSR purposes at the time of promulgation.

2. Status of Construction Bans Pursuant to section 110( n)( 3), an existing construction ban that was imposed due to the absence of approved Part D NSR rules remains in effect until a revised NSR SIP is approved. Existing construction bans imposed due to disapproval of primary sulfur dioxide NAAQS attainment plans also remain in effect. A Federal Register notice will be published soon announcing the status of construction bans in general and also lifting specific bans where appropriate. Should a construction ban be lifted in any area designated as nonattainment, and the area lacks an approved Part D NSR rule, the State should meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, in issuing permits to major new sources or major modifications prior to the adoption of NSR rules meeting the requirements of the 1990 Amendments.

3. Federal Implementation Plans Remain in Effect The NSR permitting program in an existing FIP remains in effect until a SIP is approved or a revised FIP is adopted.

4. Use of Previously Approved Growth Allowances is Prohibited Section 173( b) invalidates growth allowances in existing SIP's in areas that received a SIP call prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, or that receive one thereafter. For NSR permits issued on or after November 15, 1990, previously approved growth allowances cannot be used 9 in these areas. Construction permits cannot be issued in SIP call areas under existing EPA approved Part D programs to the extent that such permits rely on previously approved growth allowances. Case by case emission offsets must be obtained for any such permits, and other existing Part D requirements must be met.

5. Existing NSR Permitting Rules Continue to Apply in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region ( NOTR)

The 1990 Amendments establish a single ozone transport region comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the CMSA that includes the District of Columbia and part of the State of Virginia. For this transport region, including all attainment areas within its boundaries, new section 184( b)( 2) specifies that any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year of VOC's shall be considered a major stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area were classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area. For NSR purposes, the requirements of section 184( b)( 2) are not in effect in a State until the State submits a new or revised SIP that includes the requirements ( or EPA imposes a FIP implementing those requirements). A State in the NOTR has until November 15, 1992 to submit to EPA the new or revised NSR rules addressing the new requirements.