[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 23030]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07948]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1589-000]

AES ES Westwing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
AES ES Westwing, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 1, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 10, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07948 Filed 4-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:My name is Robert McCoy, I have been tobacco free for over three months thanks to E-ciggs.  I have tried to Quit a few times, but this has been the only way i could quit.  I am a strong believer that the 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
03/13/2008 03:19 PM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Johansson, Robert"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Fraas, Arthur G."
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas
Solomon/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Erika Sasser/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken
Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Rob
Brenner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina
Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tyler
Fox/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen
Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles
Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl
Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lillian
Bradley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Corrales/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie
Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Norm
Possiel/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Pat Dolwick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich
Mason/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Serpil Kayin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia
Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bruce
Schillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Ozone Final RIA Chapters for Distribution to OMB ( Replacement
chapters 5 and 6)

Thanks Janet,

I have uploaded 20 Ozone NAAQS RIA files into ROCIS, including these

final drafts of Chapters 5 and 6.

(whew!)

Heidi

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

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:08 PM

To: King, Heidi R.; Johansson, Robert; Fraas, Arthur G.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Subject: Ozone Final RIA Chapters for Distribution to OMB ( Replacement

chapters 5 and 6)

Heidi,

    Thank you for your review of the Ozone Final RIA documents sent

previously.  We have made the changes you requested to ch. 5 and 6.

Here are replacement chapters that include those changes for your files.

Typically these would have reached you through OPEI, however I

understand that you need them immediately, and Bruce was not at his

desk, so I am sending them directly to you and cc'ing him for OPEI's

records.  Please let me know if you have any trouble with the files.

Thanks,

Janet

(See attached file: 6-OzoneRIAChapter6.doc)(See attached file:

5-OzoneRIAchapter5.doc)

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: June 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 34925]
[DOCID:fr16jn06-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD06-9-000]

RTO Border Utility Issues; Notice of Technical Conference on RTO
Border Utility Issues

June 8, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 10, 2006, staff of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission will convene a technical conference on RTO border
utility issues. The conference will be held at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
conference will be open to the public. Commission staff will lead the
conference and the Commissioners plan to attend.
    In a recent Commission proceeding, parties raised the issue of an
electric utility's ability to benefit from an RTO/ISO's regional
markets while avoiding some or all of the costs attributable to
membership in the RTO/ISO.\1\ The Commission found that the issues
raised ``generic concerns with implications applicable to all RTOs and
ISOs and to all market participants with whom they interact, whether
directly or indirectly.'' The Commission then announced its intention
to establish a technical conference to hear from interested parties
concerning this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Louisville Gas and Electric Company, et al., 114 FERC ]
61,282 (2006) at P 64-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conference participants are asked to identify discrete concerns and
contrasting views, establish which specific market services,
reliability functions, and other features of RTO/ISO markets provide
non-members with benefits for which they may not bear an appropriate
share of the respective costs, or otherwise should not be entitled to,
and propose solutions to identified problems. The Commission wishes to
be informed about this issue across the country and invites
representatives of all regions to participate.
    Persons wishing to participate as panelists in the conference are
asked to e-mail the following information to Commission staff by June
15, 2006: Name, organizational affiliation name and mailing address,
title, voice and fax telephone numbers, e-mail address, brief bio, and
a description of the proposed topic of presentation. Persons interested
in attending the conference as a member of the audience are encouraged
to e-mail their name and affiliation to facilitate security check in
and to estimate meeting room needs. Both prospective panelists and
audience members should e-mail their information to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In the body of the e-mail, please identify

yourself as a potential panelist or audience member, and use ``RTO
Border UtilityConference'' on the e-mail subject line. If you do not
have access to e-mail, you may call Ms. Bailey at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An agenda will be issued prior to the conference. You may use the
Commission's e-subscription service to be notified of future notices in
this proceeding. Please visit http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
.

    A free webcast of this event will be available through http://www.ferc.gov.
 Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this

event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of

Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the webcasts. It also offers access to open meetings via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. Visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org
 or contact Danelle Perkowski or David

Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    During the summer months, Commission employees adopt business
casual dress, and the Commission encourages conference participants and
attendees to do the same.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a Fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the
required accommodations.
    For further information on this conference, please contact: Udi
Helman, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426. 202-
502-8080<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9383 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 29325-29326]
[DOCID:fr22my06-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-355-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

May 12, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 9, 2006, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf South) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff Sheets, to become effective
June 9, 2006.

Second Revised Sheet No. 3700
First Revised Sheet No. 3701
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 3702
Second Revised Sheet No. 3703
Second Revised Sheet No. 3704
Third Revised Sheet No. 3705
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 3706
Third Revised Sheet No. 3707
Second Revised Sheet No. 3708
Second Revised Sheet No. 3709
Sheet Nos. 3710-3799

    Gulf South is proposing changes to section 30 of its tariff in
order to update,

streamline, and clarify Gulf South's right-of-first-refusal processes.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online 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. E6-7703 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2031-2033]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0765]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Waterway Training Areas, Captain of the Port
Maryland-National Capital Region Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing four safety zones for certain
waters of the Patapsco River, Chesapeake Bay, and Potomac River. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these
navigable waters at Baltimore Harbor Anchorage No. 5, between Belvidere
Shoal and Kent Island, MD, between Point Lookout, MD, and St. George
Island, MD, and between Possum Point, VA, and Cockpit Point, VA, during
non-lethal signaling and warning device training conducted from on
board U.S. Coast Guard vessels. This regulation prohibits persons and
vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective February 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0765 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-
2674, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NM Nautical mile
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    To maintain ports, waterways and coastal security mission
readiness, Coast Guard personnel within the Maryland-National Capital
Region COTP Zone must conduct LA51 device training shoreward of the 12
nautical miles (NM) baseline. To better accommodate this training need,
the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region determined it must establish
four LA51 device waterway training areas in the Patapsco River,
Chesapeake Bay, and Potomac River. In response, on November 29, 2019,
the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled
``Safety Zones; Waterway Training Areas, Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region Zone'' (84 FR 65730). There we stated why we
issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to the waterway training areas. During the comment period that
ended December 30, 2019, we received no comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the LA51 device training would be a safety concern for
anyone within the waterway training areas. The purpose of this rule is
to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the
waterway training areas before, during, and after the training events.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published
November 29, 2019. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes four safety zones for use as waterway
training areas.
    Waterway training area Alpha includes all waters of the Patapsco
River encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning
at 39[deg]14'07.98'' N, 076[deg]32'58.50'' W; thence to
39[deg]13'34.98'' N, 076[deg]32'24.00'' W; thence to 39[deg]13'22.50''
N, 076[deg]32'28.98'' W; thence to 39[deg]13'21.00'' N,
076[deg]33'12.00'' W; and back to the beginning point. Waterway
training area Alpha is located at the entrance to Curtis Bay, in
Baltimore Harbor Anchorage No. 5, at Baltimore, MD. The safety zone is
a trapezoid in shape measuring approximately 1,500 yards in length and
averaging 750 yards in width.
    Waterway training area Bravo includes all waters of the Chesapeake
Bay encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning at
39[deg]05'25.98'' N, 076[deg]20'20.04'' W; thence to 39[deg]04'40.02''
N, 076[deg]19'28.98'' W; thence to 39[deg]02'45.00'' N,
076[deg]22'09.00'' W; thence to 39[deg]03'30.00'' N, 076[deg]23'00.00''
W; and back to the beginning point. Waterway training area Bravo is
located in the approaches to Baltimore Harbor, between Belvidere Shoal
and Kent Island, MD. The safety zone is a rectangle in shape situated
along a northeast-southwest axis, measuring approximately 4,500 yards
in length by 1,500 yards in width.
    Waterway training area Charlie includes all waters of the Potomac
River encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning
at 38[deg]00'28.80'' N, 076[deg]22'43.80'' W; thence to
38[deg]01'18.00'' N, 076[deg]21'54.00'' W; thence to 38[deg]05'06.00''
N, 076[deg]27'43.20'' W; thence to 38[deg]04'40.20'' N,
076[deg]28'34.20'' W; and back to the beginning point. Waterway
training area Charlie is located between Point Lookout, MD, and St.
George Island, MD. The safety zone is a rectangle in shape measuring
approximately 12,500 yards in length by 1,500 yards in width.
    Waterway training area Delta includes all waters of the Potomac
River encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning
at 38[deg]32'31.14'' N, 077[deg]15'29.82'' W; thence to
38[deg]32'48.18'' N, 077[deg]15'54.24'' W; thence to 38[deg]33'34.56''
N, 077[deg]15'07.20'' W; thence to 38[deg]33'15.06'' N,
077[deg]14'39.54'' W; and back to the beginning point. Waterway
training area Delta is located between Possum Point, VA, and Cockpit
Point, VA. The safety zone is a trapezoid in shape measuring
approximately 2,000 in length by 1,000 yards in width.
    The duration and enforcement of the zones is intended to ensure the
safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after
these training events. Except for training participants, no vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.

Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
duration, and location of the safety zones. It is anticipated that each
of these four safety zones will be activated for six separate events
annually. Although vessel traffic may not be able to safely transit
around two of these safety zones while being enforced, both of which
are on the Potomac River, the impact will be for 2 hours or less and
such vessels will be able to seek permission to enter and transit these
safety zones by contacting the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or
a designated representative by telephone or on VHF-FM channel 16.
Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves four
safety zones that, when activated, will last 48 enforcement hours
annually and prohibit entry within portions of the Patapsco River,
Chesapeake Bay, and Potomac River. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.516 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.516   Safety Zones; Waterway Training Areas, Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region Zone.

    (a) Regulated areas. The following areas are established as safety
zones (these coordinates are based on Datum NAD 83):
    (1) Waterway training area Alpha. All waters of the Patapsco River,
encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning at
39[deg]14'07.98'' N, 076[deg]32'58.50'' W; thence to 39[deg]13'34.98''
N, 076[deg]32'24.00'' W; thence to 39[deg]13'22.50'' N,
076[deg]32'28.98'' W; thence to 39[deg]13'21.00'' N, 076[deg]33'12.00''
W; and back to the beginning point.
    (2) Waterway training area Bravo. All waters of the Chesapeake Bay,
encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning at
39[deg]05'25.98'' N, 076[deg]20'20.04'' W; thence to 39[deg]04'40.02''
N, 076[deg]19'28.98'' W; thence to 39[deg]02'45.00'' N,
076[deg]22'09.00'' W; thence to 39[deg]03'30.00'' N, 076[deg]23'00.00''
W; and back to the beginning point.
    (3) Waterway training area Charlie. All waters of the Potomac
River, encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning
at 38[deg]00'28.80'' N, 076[deg]22'43.80'' W; thence to
38[deg]01'18.00'' N, 076[deg]21'54.00'' W; thence to 38[deg]05'06.00''
N, 076[deg]27'43.20'' W; thence to 38[deg]04'40.20'' N,
076[deg]28'34.20'' W; and back to the beginning point.
    (4) Waterway training area Delta. All waters of the Potomac River,
encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning at
38[deg]32'31.14'' N, 077[deg]15'29.82'' W; thence to 38[deg]32'48.18''
N, 077[deg]15'54.24'' W; thence to 38[deg]33'34.56'' N,
077[deg]15'07.20'' W; thence to 38[deg]33'15.06'' N, 077[deg]14'39.54''
W; and back to the beginning point.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the
enforcement of the safety zones.
    Training participant means a person or vessel authorized by the
COTP as participating in the training event or otherwise designated by
the COTP or the COTP's designated representative as having a function
tied to the training event.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zones described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) Except for training participants, all vessels underway within
this safety zone at the time it is activated are to depart the zone. To
seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this
section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (3) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (d) Enforcement. The safety zones created by this section will be
enforced only upon issuance of a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) by
the COTP or the COTP's representative, as well as on-scene notice or
other appropriate means in accordance with Sec.  165.7.

    Dated: January 7, 2020.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-00280 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 32)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7583]
[DOCID:fr16fe07-17]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR 2, 33, 365, and 366

[Docket No. AD07-2-000]

Technical Conference on Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935 and Enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005;
Notice of Technical Conference

February 9, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Technical Conference.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
holding a technical conference on March 8, 2007, to discuss certain
issues raised in rulemakings issued in Commission Docket Nos. RM05-32-
000 and RM05-34-000. This is the second conference being held as a
follow-up to Commission Order Nos. 667 and No. 669. The Commission is
now soliciting nominations for speakers at the technical conference.

DATES: Nominations must be made on or before: February 15, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McKinley, Office of External
Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This conference addresses certain issues
raised in rulemakings issued in Docket No. RM05-32-000 (70 FR 75592,
December 20, 2005) and Docket No. RM05-34-000 (71 FR 1348, January 6,
2006).

Technical Conference on Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 and
Federal Power Act Section 203 Issues

February 9, 2007.

    Take notice that on March 8, 2007, a technical conference will be
held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to discuss certain
issues raised in rulemakings issued in Docket Nos. RM05-32 and RM05-34.
This is the second technical conference \1\ being held as a follow-up
to the Commission's Orders No. 667 and No. 669.\2\ The technical
conference will be held from approximately 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (EST) at
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in the Commission Meeting Room. Commissioners are
expected to attend. All interested persons are invited to attend, and
registration is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The first technical conference was held on December 7, 2006,
and primarily focused on matters pertaining to cross subsidization;
cash management programs and money pools; and exemptions, waivers
and blanket authorizations set forth in Order Nos. 667 and 669.
    \2\ Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and
Enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, Order
No. 667, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,197 (2005), order on reh'g, Order
No. 667-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,213, order on reh'g, Order No.
667-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,224 (2006), reh'g pending;
Transactions Subject to FPA Section 203, Order No. 669, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,200 (2006), order on reh'g, Order No. 669-A, FERC
Stats. Regs. ] 31,214 (2006), order on reh'g, Order No. 669-B, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,225 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subject of this technical conference is whether the
Commission's current merger policy should be revised, in particular
whether the Commission's Appendix A analysis is sufficient to identify
market power concerns in today's electric industry market environment.
A further notice with a detailed agenda will be issued in advance of
the conference.
    The Commission is now soliciting nominations for speakers at the
technical conference. Persons wishing to nominate themselves as
speakers should do so using this electronic link: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/puhca-03-08-speaker-form.asp.
 Such nominations

must be made before the close of business, Thursday, February 15, 2007,
so that an agenda for the technical conference can be drafted and
published.
    Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from
Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They
will be available for the public on the Commission's eLibrary system
seven calendar days after FERC receives the transcript.
    A free webcast of this event will be available through http://www.ferc.gov.
 Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this

event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and

locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to
its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the
free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in
the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions,
visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Perkowski or

David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah
McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-2707 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 49058-49059]
[DOCID:fr25se09-151]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60688; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating
to the Maximum Number of Quoters (``MNQ'') Permitted To Be Assigned in
Equity Options

September 18, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on September 17, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 507, Application for
Approval as an SQT or RSQT and Assignment in Options, which governs the
assignment of options to Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'').\3\ and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''),\4\ by establishing a higher
maximum number of quoting participants (``Maximum Number of Quoters''
or ``MNQ'') in equity options.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options Trader (``ROT'')
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
options quotations electronically through AUTOM in eligible options
to which such SQT is assigned. An SQT may only submit such
quotations while such SQT is physically present on the floor of the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \4\ An RSQT is a ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that a separate proposed rule change has
been pre-filed (the ``separate filing'') that would amend various
Exchange rules, including certain portions of Rule 507. The instant
proposed amendments to Commentary .02 of Rule 507 are not affected
by, and do not affect, the proposed amendments in the separate
filing. The term ``no change'' used in this proposal applies only to
the instant proposed rule change and does not override or negate any
proposed changes in the separate filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide additional
liquidity in equity options on the Exchange by increasing the MNQ in
equity options.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Commentary .05 to Rule 507 states that the Exchange may
increase the MNQ levels established in this Commentary by submitting
to the SEC a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Exchange Act. The Exchange may decrease the MNQ levels established
in this Commentary upon SEC approval of a rule filing submitted
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange limits the number of participants that may
be assigned to a particular equity option at any one time based upon
each option's monthly national volume. Commentary .02 to Rule 507
currently sets forth tiered MNQ levels permitting assignment of trading
privileges to 22 market participants for the top 5% most actively
traded options; 17 market participants for next 10% most actively
traded options, and 15 market participants for all other options.\7\
The

ranking is based upon the preceding month's national volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ When initially adopted, Commentary .02(a)-(c) established
MNQ levels of 20 market participants for the top 5% most actively
traded options; 15 market participants for next 10% most actively
traded options, and 10 market participants for all other options.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55114 (January 17, 2007), 72
FR 3185 (January 24, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-81). These MNQ levels were
subsequently increased to levels of 22, 17, and 12, respectively.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56261 (August 15, 2007), 72
FR 47112 (August 22, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-51). The MNQ levels were
then increased to the current 22, 17 and 15 respectively. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58906 (November 6, 2008), 73 FR
67239 (November 13, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the MNQ levels from 22 to 24
market participants for equity options in the top 5% most actively
traded options; from 17 market participants to 19 market participants
for next 10% most actively traded options; and from 15 market
participants to 17 market participants for all other options.
    All new applicants for trading privileges will be subject to the
process for assignment described in Rule 507. The Exchange considers
all applicants for assignment in options using the objective criteria
set forth in Exchange Rule 507(b). The objective criteria are used by
the Exchange in determining the most beneficial assignment of options
for the Exchange and the public.
    After careful analysis, the Exchange believes it has the capacity
to increase the MNQ as proposed. The Exchange believes that the effect
of an increase in the MNQ fosters competition in that it increases the
number of market participants that may quote electronically in a
product. Pursuant to Commentary .05 to Rule 507, The Exchange will
announce all changes regarding MNQ levels to the membership on the
Exchange's Web site.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by adding depth and liquidity to the Exchange's markets in equity
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that increasing the MNQ in equity
options is pro-competitive, because it adds depth and liquidity to the
Exchange's markets by permitting additional participants to compete on
the Exchange.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as a ``non-
controversial'' rule pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act
and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\11\ because the
proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative
for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time
as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the Exchange has given
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change at least five business days prior to the filing of the proposed
rule change.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written
notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change
along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2009-82 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2009-82. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2009-82 and should be
submitted on or before October 16, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23097 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10791-10796]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04935]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0215; FRL-9975-32-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia (Virginia). The revision requests EPA remove from the Virginia
SIP regulations from the Virginia Administrative Code that established
trading programs under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The EPA-
administered trading programs under CAIR were discontinued on December
31, 2014, upon the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR), which was promulgated by EPA to replace CAIR. CSAPR
established federal trading programs for sources in multiple states,
including Virginia, that replace the CAIR state and federal trading
programs. The submitted SIP revision requests removal of state
regulations that implemented the CAIR annual nitrogen oxides
(NOX), ozone season NOX, and annual sulfur
dioxide (SO2) trading programs from the Virginia SIP (as
CSAPR has replaced CAIR). EPA is approving the SIP revision in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID

Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0215. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 2005, EPA promulgated CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) to
address transported emissions that significantly contributed to
downwind states' nonattainment and interfered with maintenance of the
1997 ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CAIR required 28 states,
including Virginia, to revise their SIPs to reduce emissions of
NOX and SO2, precursors to the formation of
ambient ozone and PM2.5. Under CAIR, EPA provided model
state rules for separate cap-and-trade programs for annual
NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2.
The annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs
were designed to address transported PM2.5 pollution, while
the ozone season NOX trading program was designed to address
transported ozone pollution. EPA also promulgated CAIR federal
implementation plans (FIPs) with CAIR federal trading programs that
would address each state's CAIR requirements in the event that a CAIR
SIP for the state was not submitted or approved (71 FR 25328, April 28,
2006). Generally, both the model state rules and the federal trading
program rules applied only to electric generating units (EGUs), but in
the case of the model state rule and federal trading program for ozone
season NOX emissions, each state had the option to submit a
CAIR SIP revision that expanded applicability to include certain non-
EGUs \1\ that formerly participated in the NOX Budget
Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call.\2\ Virginia
submitted, and EPA approved, a CAIR SIP revision based on the model
state rules establishing CAIR state trading programs for annual
SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX
emissions, with certain non-EGUs included in the state's CAIR ozone
season NOX trading program. See 72 FR 73602 (December 28,
2007). Because Virginia's NOX ozone season trading program
under CAIR included non-EGUs that previously participated in the
NOX budget trading program under the NOX SIP
Call, this CAIR program satisfied Virginia's obligations under the
NOX SIP Call as to both EGUs and non-EGUs. However, even
though the NOX SIP Call requirements were being met by the
CAIR program, Virginia's state NOX Budget Trading Program
rule also remains part of the state's approved SIP. See 76 FR 68638
(November 7, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These non-EGUs are generally defined in the NOX
SIP Call as stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers, combustion
turbines, or combined cycle systems with a maximum design heat input
greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr).
    \2\ In October 1998, EPA finalized the ``Finding of Significant
Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional
Transport of Ozone''--commonly called the NOX SIP Call.
See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
modified, 550 F.3d 1176 (2008). The ruling allowed CAIR to remain in
effect temporarily until a replacement rule consistent with the court's
opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a replacement
rule, the CAIR program continued as planned with the NOX
annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and the
SO2 annual program beginning in 2010.
    On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's
remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR in order to address the
interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and
interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered
by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR required EGUs
in affected states, including Virginia, to participate in federal
trading programs to reduce annual SO2, annual
NOX, and/or ozone season NOX emissions. The rule
also contained provisions that would sunset CAIR-related obligations on
a schedule coordinated with the implementation of the CSAPR compliance
requirements. CSAPR was intended to become effective January 1, 2012;
however, the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by a number
of court actions.
    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR prior
to its implementation and ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR on
an interim basis. On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its
ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued
implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was
reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the
case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in
accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit
affirmed CSAPR in most respects but remanded certain state emissions
budgets, including Virginia's Phase 2 budget for ozone season
NOX emissions. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME
Homer City II), 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
    Throughout the initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the
ensuing Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on CSAPR remained in place,
and EPA continued to implement CAIR. Following the April 2014 Supreme
Court decision, EPA filed a motion asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the
stay in order to allow CSAPR to replace CAIR in an equitable and
orderly manner while further D.C. Circuit proceedings were held to
resolve remaining claims from petitioners. Additionally, EPA's motion
requested delay, by three years, of all CSAPR compliance deadlines that
had not passed as of the approval date of the stay. On October 23,
2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014
(79 FR 71663), in an interim final rule, EPA set the updated effective
date of CSAPR as January 1, 2015, and delayed the implementation of
CSAPR Phase I to 2015 and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the
interim final rule, EPA stopped administering the CAIR state and
federal trading programs with respect to emissions occurring after
December 31, 2014, and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1,
2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA solicited comment on the interim final rule and
subsequently issued a final rule affirming the amended compliance
schedule after consideration of comments received. 81 FR 13275
(March 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2016, EPA promulgated the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504,
October 26, 2016) to address interstate transport of ozone pollution
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and issued FIPs that established
or updated ozone season NOX budgets for 22 states,

including Virginia. Starting in January 2017, the CSAPR Update budgets
were implemented via modifications to the CSAPR NOX ozone
season allowance trading program that was established under the
original CSAPR.
    As noted above, starting in January 2015, the CSAPR federal trading
programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and
annual SO2 were applicable in Virginia. Thus, since January
1, 2015, EPA has not administered the CAIR state trading programs for
annual NOX, ozone season NOX, or annual
SO2 emissions established by the Virginia regulations.
    On January 5, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), formally
submitted a SIP revision (Revision D16) that requests removal from its
SIP of Virginia Administrative Code regulations including 9 VAC 5
Chapter 140: Part II--NOX Annual Trading Program; Part III--
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program; and Part IV--
SO2 Annual Trading Program (Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-
140-3880), which implemented the CAIR annual NOX, ozone
season NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs in
Virginia.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA notes that Virginia's January 5, 2017 SIP revision does
not request removal of the regulations under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140:
Part I--NOX Budget Trading Program, which include
regulations addressing the continuous emission monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR part 75 for non-EGUs covered by the
NOX SIP Call (Part 75 rule). Therefore, this rulemaking
action does not apply to regulations under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part
I--NOX Budget Trading Program, including those related to
the part 75 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 28, 2017, EPA simultaneously published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) (82 FR 45241) and a direct final rule (DFR)
(82 FR 45187) for Virginia approving, as a SIP revision, the removal of
the regulations under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II--NOX
Annual Trading Program; Part III--NOX Ozone Season Trading
Program; and Part IV--SO2 Annual Trading Program (Sections
5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880), which implemented the CAIR annual
NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2
trading programs in Virginia, from the Virginia SIP. EPA received
adverse comments on the rulemaking and withdrew the DFR prior to the
effective date of November 27, 2017. See 82 FR 55052 (November 20,
2017). In the NPR, EPA had proposed to approve the SIP revision, which
would remove from the Virginia SIP the regulations under 9 VAC 5
Chapter 140 that implemented the CAIR annual NOX, ozone
season NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs. In
this final rulemaking, EPA is responding to the comments submitted on
the proposed revision to the Virginia SIP and is approving, as a SIP
revision, the removal of these regulations from the Virginia SIP.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    VADEQ's January 5, 2017 SIP revision requests the removal of
regulations from the Virginia SIP under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II--
NOX Annual Trading Program, Part III--NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program, and Part IV--SO2 Annual Trading
Program (Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880), which implemented the
state's CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and
annual SO2 trading programs. EPA has not administered the
trading programs established by these regulations since January 1,
2015, when the CSAPR trading programs replaced the CAIR programs, and
the state CAIR regulations have been repealed in their entirety from
the Virginia Administrative Code. The amendments removing these
regulations were adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on
September 9, 2016, and were effective as of November 16, 2016.
    As noted previously, the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season
NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs addressed
interstate transport of emissions under the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA for
replacement, and in response EPA promulgated CSAPR which, among other
things, fully addresses Virginia's interstate transport obligation
under the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR at 48210. EPA stopped
administering the CAIR trading programs after 2014 and instead began
implementing the CSAPR trading programs in 2015. EPA had also
determined that CSAPR would fully address Virginia's interstate
transport obligation under the 1997 ozone NAAQS, id., but the D.C.
Circuit later remanded Virginia's CSAPR Phase 2 budget for ozone season
NOX, finding that the CSAPR rulemaking record did not
support EPA's determination of a transport obligation under the 1997
ozone NAAQS for Virginia in CSAPR Phase 2, EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d
at 129-30, and in response to the Court's decision EPA withdrew
Virginia's remanded budget.\5\ Thus, none of Virginia's three CAIR
state rules still plays any role in addressing the transport
obligations that the state initially adopted the rules to address: The
CAIR trading programs are no longer being administered; the state's
transport obligation under the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is now being
addressed by the CSAPR trading programs for annual NOX and
SO2; and the state no longer has a transport obligation
under the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The replacement ozone season NOX budget
established for Virginia in the CSAPR Update addresses (in part) the
state's transport obligation under the 2008 ozone NAAQS rather than
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Virginia's CAIR trading programs for annual NOX and
SO2 were adopted only to address Virginia's transport
obligation under the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, one of the two NAAQS
underlying EPA's CAIR rules. In contrast, Virginia's CAIR trading
program for ozone season NOX was adopted to address not only
Virginia's transport obligation under the 1997 ozone NAAQS (the other
NAAQS underlying EPA's CAIR rules), but also Virginia's ongoing
obligations under the NOX SIP Call.\6\ Specifically, under
the NOX SIP Call the Virginia SIP, first, must include
enforceable control measures for large EGUs and large non-EGUs and,
second, must require those sources to monitor and report ozone season
NOX emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 75. See 40 CFR
51.121(f)(2) and (i)(4). Virginia's EGUs are currently subject to
requirements under the federal CSAPR trading program for ozone season
NOX that address the purpose of these NOX SIP
Call requirements as to EGUs, but because Virginia's non-EGUs are not
subject to that CSAPR trading program, the state must meet these
requirements for non-EGUs through other SIP provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The NOX SIP Call addresses states' transport
obligations under the 1979 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the NOX SIP Call requirement for the SIP
to include part 75 monitoring requirements, Virginia's SIP still
includes the state's NOX Budget Trading Program rules, and
those rules continue to require non-EGUs to monitor and report ozone
season NOX emissions under part 75 even though EPA is no
longer administering the trading program provisions of the state's
rules. Thus, removal of the state's CAIR rules for ozone season
NOX emissions from Virginia's SIP will not eliminate the
required SIP provisions for part 75 monitoring by non-EGUs under the
NOX SIP Call because the SIP will still include the
equivalent provisions in the state's NOX Budget Trading
Program rules.
    With respect to the NOX SIP Call requirement for the SIP
to include enforceable control measures for non-EGUs, Virginia formerly
met the requirement by including these sources

in the state's CAIR trading program for ozone season NOX
emissions. When EPA initially replaced the CAIR trading programs with
the CSAPR trading programs in 2015, the CSAPR regulations did not
provide an option for states to expand trading program applicability to
include these non-EGUs. In the CSAPR Update, EPA restored the option to
include these EGUs in the current CSAPR trading program for ozone
season NOX starting in 2019, but Virginia has not elected
this option. Accordingly, since January 1, 2015, when the CSAPR federal
trading program became effective in Virginia and EPA stopped
administering the CAIR trading programs, the Virginia SIP has not
contained an effective regulation addressing the NOX SIP
Call requirement for enforceable control measures for non-EGUs that
formerly participated in the state's NOX Budget Trading
Program. However, Virginia's request in its January 5, 2017 SIP seeking
removal from its SIP of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part III--NOX
Ozone Season Trading Program and EPA's action to approve the January 5,
2017 submittal did not create this gap in coverage under the Virginia
SIP. Rather, as described above, the gap predates the SIP submittal at
issue in this action, and approval of the SIP submittal will not
exacerbate or otherwise affect the gap. According to Virginia, the
Commonwealth is in the process of drafting a regulation to address the
Commonwealth's obligations under the NOX SIP Call (including
its obligation to address these non-EGUs which formerly participated in
the state's CAIR trading program for ozone season NOX
emissions). In remedying its provisions to address the NOX
SIP Call, Virginia must satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2)
for the SIP to include enforceable control measures for non-EGUs that
are stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers, combustion turbines, or
combined cycle systems with a maximum design heat input greater than
250 MMBtu/hr. EPA expects Virginia will submit such provisions to EPA
to be included in Virginia's SIP, and EPA will review and act on any
such SIP submittal from Virginia addressing the Commonwealth's
NOX SIP Call obligations in a separate rulemaking.
    In summary, Virginia's CAIR rules at 9 VAC 5, Chapter 140: Part II-
NOX Annual Trading Program, Part III--NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program, and Part IV--SO2 Annual Trading
Program (sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880) no longer play any
role in addressing the transport obligations that the rules were
adopted to address, and removal of the rules from the SIP will not
introduce any new gaps with respect to the additional purposes that the
rules served with respect to addressing the state's ongoing obligations
under the NOX SIP Call. EPA therefore finds Virginia's
January 5, 2017 SIP revision requesting removal of these CAIR rules
from the SIP approvable in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. The
public comments received on the NPR are discussed in Section III of
this rulemaking action.

III. Public Comments and EPA's Response

    EPA received two public comments on our September 28, 2017 action
to approve Virginia's January 5, 2017 SIP submittal that requests the
removal of the regulations under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II--
NOX Annual Trading Program; Part III--NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program; and Part IV--SO2 Annual Trading
Program (Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880), which implemented the
state's CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and
annual SO2 trading programs, from the Virginia SIP. The
comment submitted on October 7, 2017 was not specific to this
rulemaking action and will not be addressed here.
    Comment: The commenter stated that ``EPA needs to ensure that the
NOX SIP call sources'' are addressed in the Virginia SIP.
The commenter also requested that EPA not remove CAIR in Virginia,
citing its public health benefits.
    EPA Response to Comment: As discussed in Section II, the CAIR
trading programs are no longer being administered, and for that reason
removing Virginia's CAIR rules from the state's SIP will have no
consequences for any source's operations or emissions or for public
health. EPA also notes that removal of the state's CAIR rules from the
state's SIP does not eliminate requirements for the state's EGUs and
non-EGUs to monitor and report their ozone season NOX
emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 as required under the
NOX SIP Call. The EGUs continue to be subject to part 75
requirements under the current CSAPR trading program rules, and the
non-EGUs continue to be subject to part 75 requirements under the
state's NOX Budget Trading Program rules, which are still
included in the state's SIP.
    EPA agrees that under the NOX SIP Call, the Virginia SIP
must include enforceable control measures for ozone season
NOX emissions from non-EGUs, such as stationary, fossil
fuel-fired boilers, combustion turbines, or combined cycle systems with
a maximum design heat input greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, that formerly
participated in the state's NOX SIP Call trading program and
CAIR trading program for ozone season NOX emission. This
requirement for the SIP to include enforceable control measures was
formerly met by the SIP provisions requiring these sources to
participate in the state's NOX Budget Trading Program and
then the state's CAIR trading program for ozone season NOX
emissions. However, since 2015, when EPA began implementing the CSAPR
trading programs and stopped administering the CAIR trading programs in
response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, Virginia's SIP has not
included enforceable control measures for NOX emissions from
these non-EGUs. This gap in SIP coverage was caused by the
discontinuation of the CAIR trading programs and predates the SIP
submittal at issue in this action. Removing the state's CAIR rules from
the SIP at this time will not exacerbate or otherwise affect this pre-
existing lack of enforceable control measures in the SIP. As stated
above in Section II, according to Virginia, the Commonwealth is in the
process of drafting a regulation to address the Commonwealth's
obligation under the NOX SIP Call with respect to
NOX emissions from these non-EGUs, which includes the
requirement for enforceable control measures. EPA expects Virginia will
submit such provisions to EPA to be included in Virginia's SIP, and EPA
will review and act on any such SIP submittal from Virginia addressing
the Commonwealth's NOX SIP Call obligations in a separate
rulemaking.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Virginia SIP revision submitted on January 5,
2017 that sought removal from the Virginia SIP of regulations under 9
VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II--NOX Annual Trading Program; Part
III--NOX Ozone Season Trading Program; and Part IV--
SO2 Annual Trading Program (Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-
140-3880), which implemented the state's CAIR annual NOX,
ozone season NOX, and annual SO2 trading
programs. Removal of these regulations from the Virginia SIP is in
accordance with section 110 of the CAA. This rule, which responds to
the adverse comments received, finalizes our proposed approval of
Virginia's January 5, 2017 SIP submittal.

V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain

conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) ``privilege'' for
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The
legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties
either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for
which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides,
subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of
environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations
pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses
such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate
measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental
Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege
that protects from disclosure documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary
environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to
documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before
the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are
prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 14, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action.
    This action removing from the Virginia SIP regulations under
Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140 that
implemented the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season
NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA
section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 23, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

Sec.  52.2420   [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Removing the table heading ``Part II--NOX Annual Trading
Program''; the table subheading ``Article 1 CAIR NOX Annual
Trading Program General Provisions'' and the entries ``5-140-1010''
through ``5-140-1080''; the table subheading ``Article 2 CAIR-
designated Representative for CAIR NOX Sources'' and the
entries ``5-140-1100'' through ``5-140-1150''; the table subheading
``Article 3 Permits'' and the entries ``5-140-1200'' through ``5-140-
1240''; the table subheading ``Article 5 CAIR NOX Allowance
Allocations'' and the entries ``5-140-1400'' through ``5-140-1430'';
the table subheading ``Article 6 CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking
System'' and the entries ``5-140-1510'' through ``5-140-1570''; the
table subheading ``Article 7 CAIR NOX Allowance Transfers''
and the entries ``5-140-1600'' through ``5-140-1620''; the table
subheading ``Article 8 Monitoring and Reporting'' and the entries ``5-
140-1700'' through ``5-140-1750''; the table subheading ``Article 9
CAIR NOX Opt-in Units'' and the entries ``5-140-1800''
through ``5-140-1880''.
0
b. Removing the table heading ``Part III NOX Ozone Season
Trading Program''; the table subheading ``Article 1 CAIR NOX
Ozone Season Trading Program General Provisions'' and the entries ``5-
140-2010'' through ``5-140-2080''; the table subheading ``Article 2
CAIR-Designated Representative for CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Sources'' and the entries ``5-140-2100'' through ``5-140-2150''; the
table subheading ``Article 3 Permits'' and the entries ``5-140-2200''
through ``5-140-2240''; the table subheading ``Article 5 CAIR
NOX Ozone Season Allowance Allocations'' and the entries
``5-140-2400'' through ``5-140-2430''; the table subheading ``Article 6
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System'' and the
entries ``5-140-2510'' through ``5-140-2570''; the table subheading
``Article 7 CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Transfers'' and
the entries ``5-140-2600'' through ``5-140-2620''; the table subheading
``Article 8 Monitoring and Reporting'' and the entries ``5-140-2700''
through ``5-140-2750''; the table subheading ``Article 9 CAIR
NOX Ozone Season Opt-in Units'' and the entries ``5-140-
2800'' through ``5-140-2880''.
0
c. Removing the table heading ``Part IV--SO2 Annual Trading
Program''; the table subheading ``Article 1 CAIR SO2 Trading
Program General Provisions'' and the entries ``5-140-3010'' through
``5-140-3080''; the table subheading ``Article 2 CAIR-designated
Representative for CAIR SO2 Sources'' and the entries ``5-
140-3100'' through ``5-140-3150''; the table subheading ``Article 3
Permits'' and the entries ``5-140-3200'' through ``5-140-3240''; the
table subheading ``Article 5 CAIR SO2 Allowance
Allocations'' and the entries ``5-140-3400'' through ``5-140-3420'';
the table subheading ``Article 6 CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking
System'' and the entries ``5-140-3510'' through ``5-140-3570''; the
table subheading ``Article 7 CAIR SO2 Allowance Transfers''
and the entries ``5-140-3600'' through ``5-140-3620''; the table
subheading ``Article 8 Monitoring and Reporting'' and the entries ``5-
140-3700'' through ``5-140-3750''; the table subheading ``Article 9
CAIR SO2 Opt-in Units'' and the entries ``5-140-3800''
through ``5-140-3880''.

[FR Doc. 2018-04935 Filed 3-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20491-20492]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07336]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-359, OMB Control No. 3235-0410]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rules
17h-1T and 17h-2T (17 CFR 240.17h-1T and 17 CFR 240.17h-2T), under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17h-1T requires a covered broker-dealer to maintain and
preserve records and other information concerning certain entities that
are associated with the broker-dealer. This

requirement extends to the financial and securities activities of the
holding company, affiliates and subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that
are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the financial or
operational condition of the broker-dealer. Rule 17h-2T requires a
covered broker-dealer to file with the Commission quarterly reports and
a cumulative year-end report concerning the information required to be
maintained and preserved under Rule 17h-1T.
    The collection of information required by Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T,
collectively referred to as the ``risk assessment rules,'' is necessary
to enable the Commission to monitor the activities of a broker-dealer
affiliate whose business activities are reasonably likely to have a
material impact on the financial or operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Without this information, the Commission would be unable
to assess the potentially damaging impact of the affiliate's activities
on the broker-dealer.
    There are currently 235 respondents that must comply with Rules
17h-1T and 17h-2T. Each of these 235 respondents are estimated to
require 10 hours per year to maintain the records required under Rule
17h-1T, for an aggregate estimated annual burden of 2,350 hours (235
respondents x 10 hours). In addition, each of these 235 respondents
must make five annual responses under Rule 17h-2T. These five responses
are estimated to require 14 hours per respondent per year for an
aggregate estimated annual burden of 3,290 hours (235 respondents x 14
hours).
    In addition, new respondents must draft an organizational chart
required under Rule 17h-1T and establish a system for complying with
the risk assessment rules. The staff estimates that drafting the
required organizational chart requires one hour and establishing a
system for complying with the risk assessment rules requires three
hours. Based on the reduction in the number of filers in recent years,
the staff estimates there will be zero new respondents, and thus, a
corresponding estimated burden of zero hours for new respondents. Thus,
the total compliance burden per year is approximately 5,640 burden
hours (2,350 hours + 3,290 hours).
    The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement for the
information, reports and records required under Rule 17h-1T is not less
than three years. There is no specific retention period or
recordkeeping requirement for Rule 17h-2T. The collection of
information is mandatory. All information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to the provisions of Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T from a broker or
dealer concerning a material associated person is deemed confidential
information for the purposes of section 24(b) of the Exchange Act.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: >www.reginfo.gov<. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) >[email protected]< and (ii) David
Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549,
or by sending an email to: [email protected]. Comments must be
submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 1, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07336 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23690-23691]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0034; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-021-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing
Company Model 777-200 series airplanes. The proposed AD would have
required installing a new circuit breaker, relays, and wiring to allow
the flightcrew to turn off electrical power to the in-flight
entertainment (IFE) systems and other non-essential electrical systems
through a switch in the flight compartment, and doing other specified
actions. This proposed AD would also have required installing a new
cabin system control panel (CSCP); installing a new cabin management
system (CMS) configuration database; and installing new operational
program software (OPS) for the CSCP, zone management unit (ZMU),
passenger address controller, cabin interphone controller, cabin area
control panel (CACP), speaker drive module, overhead electronics units,
and seat electronics unit. Since the proposed AD was issued, we have
received new data that indicates the unsafe condition would not be
adequately addressed by the proposed action. Subsequently, we are
considering issuing new rulemaking that positively addresses the unsafe
condition identified in the NPRM and eliminates the need for the
actions proposed in the NPRM. Accordingly, the proposed AD is
withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD action, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Mei, Aerospace Engineer, Systems
and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6467; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new
AD for certain Model 777-200 series airplanes. That NPRM published in
the Federal Register on February 1, 2011 (76 FR 5505). The NPRM would
have required installing a new circuit breaker, relays, and wiring to
allow the flightcrew to turn off electrical power to the IFE systems
and other non-essential electrical systems through a switch in the
flight compartment, and doing other specified actions. The actions
included removing the CSCP core partition software, the CACP OPS, the
ZMU OPS, and the cabin system management unit (CSMU) OPS; installing
OPS for the CSCP, CACP, ZMU, and CSMU; and installing the new
configuration database (CDB). That NPRM would also have required
installing a new CSCP; installing a new CMS CDB, installing passenger
address controller, cabin

interphone controller, speaker drive module, overhead electronics
units, and seat electronics unit. The NPRM resulted from an IFE systems
review. The proposed actions were intended to ensure that the
flightcrew is able to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and
other non-essential electrical systems through a switch in the flight
compartment in the event of smoke or flames. The flightcrew's inability
to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential
electrical systems in the event of smoke or flames could result in the
inability to control smoke or flames in the airplane flight deck or
passenger cabin during a non-normal or emergency situation.

Actions Since NPRM (76 FR 5505, February 1, 2011) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR 5505, February 1, 2011), we have
received new data that indicates the unsafe condition would not be
adequately addressed by the proposed action. Subsequently, we are
considering issuing new rulemaking that positively addresses the unsafe
condition identified in the NPRM and eliminates the need for the
actions proposed in the NPRM.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that the unsafe
condition still exists, however, we intend to address it with new AD
rulemaking. Accordingly, the NPRM (76 FR 5505, February 1, 2011) is
withdrawn.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (76 FR 5505, February 1, 2011) does not
preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA
to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM (76 FR 5505, February 1,
2011), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not
covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2011-0034,
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-021-AD, which published in the Federal
Register on February 1, 2011 (76 FR 5505).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 1, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09422 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P