[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8916-8923]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03322]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0495; FRL-9906-61-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions for Permitting of Particulate Matter With Diameters Less Than
or Equal to 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on May 19, 2011. The May 19, 2011, SIP
submission adopts revisions to the Texas General Air Quality
Definitions and Permits by Rule (PBR) program consistent with certain
federal rules implementing the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to find
that the Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) New Source
Review (NSR) SIP meets all EPA PM2.5 PSD SIP rules. These
rules include permitting components such as the PM2.5
precursors of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, condensables,
significant emissions rates (SER), and increment. EPA is proposing
these actions under section 110 and part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2011-0495, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: Ms. Adina Wiley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or Delivery: Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0495. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM
submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph
below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits
Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue
(6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is
(214) 665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background for Our Proposed Action
II. Summary of State Submittal
    A. Summary of the Revisions to the General Definitions at 30 TAC
Section 101.1

    B. Summary of the Revisions to the Requirements for Permitting
by Rule at 30 TAC Section 106.4
III. EPA's Analysis of the May 19, 2011 Texas SIP Submittal
    A. Analysis of the May 19, 2011 Revisions to the General
Definitions at 30 TAC Section 101.1
    B. Analysis of the May 19, 2011 Revisions and the Texas PSD
Permitting Program
    1. The NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
    2. The PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule
    C. Analysis of the May 19, 2011 Revisions to the Texas Minor NSR
Permitting Programs
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Our Proposed Action

    The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to include preconstruction review and permitting programs
applicable to certain new and modified stationary sources of air
pollutants. These requirements apply in attainment and nonattainment
areas and cover both major and minor new sources and modifications.
Collectively, these SIP requirements are referred to as the New Source
Review (NSR) SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate
programs: Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), nonattainment
(NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the
CAA and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS--``attainment areas''--as
well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if
the area meets the NAAQS--``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR SIP
program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in
areas that are designated as ``nonattainment areas'' because they are
not in attainment of the NAAQS. The Minor NSR SIP program addresses
construction or modification activities for sources that will not emit,
or have the potential to emit, above certain thresholds and thus do not
qualify as ``major.'' Minor NSR applies regardless of the designation
of the area in which a source is located. EPA regulations governing the
criteria that states must satisfy for EPA approval of the NSR programs
as part of the SIP are contained in 40 CFR 51.160-51.166.
    When EPA originally approved TCEQ's PSD SIP on June 24, 1992, this
action included the TCEQ's authority to require PSD permits for
emissions of ozone, particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxides, and lead (57 FR 28093). TCEQ's Minor NSR SIP also
requires permits for these emissions. Under Texas state law, once the
TCEQ has the authority to require the permitting of a NAAQS for a
particular pollutant, it has the authority to require the permitting of
any new or revised version of that NAAQS for that pollutant. For
instance, the ozone NAAQS was first promulgated by EPA in 1971 with a
one-hour averaging time. The ozone NAAQS was revised in 1979 with the
same averaging time but in a different form, and then revised again in
1997 and 2008 with an 8-hour averaging time and different form.
Regardless of later revisions by EPA, as of the 1992 approval of TCEQ's
PSD SIP, TCEQ had the state authority to require permitting of these
different versions of the ozone NAAQS upon the effective date of each
new or revised NAAQS. The Texas PSD SIP and the Texas Minor NSR SIP
cover these various versions of the same pollutant, ozone. This
continuation of authority is analogously applicable for all the other
NAAQS, including the PM NAAQS, i.e. TCEQ has the authority to require
the permitting of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon the 1992 SIP-approved authority to permit the PM NAAQS. The TCEQ,
however, must undergo an additional rulemaking and submit for approval
as part of the PSD SIP, revisions that address any PSD SIP regulations
promulgated by EPA that add new permitting components to the PSD
program, e.g., precursors, increments, and significant emission rates
(SERs). Thereafter, TCEQ does not need to conduct further rulemaking to
cover any new PSD SIP regulations for that pollutant unless EPA
promulgates a new requirement not originally contemplated by EPA
regulations which TCEQ has undergone rulemaking to address, e.g., a new
precursor for PM2.5. By contrast, TCEQ would not necessarily
have to undergo additional rulemaking if EPA revises an existing
permitting component that TCEQ has previously undergone rulemaking to
address, e.g. EPA revises the SERs for the PM2.5 NAAQS and
NOX and SO2 precursors.
    Accordingly, the TCEQ adopted revisions on April 20, 2011, and
submitted them to EPA on May 19, 2011, for approval into the Texas SIP.
These TCEQ revisions address the regulatory requirements of EPA's
implementation rules for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as
applicable to the State's general regulatory program and its PSD and
Minor NSR SIP permitting programs. Specifically, EPA promulgated two
rules establishing both required and optional implementation
regulations for PM2.5: the May 16, 2008 final rule for
Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) (referred to as the
NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule), 73 FR 28321, and the October
20, 2010 final rule for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC) (referred to as the PM2.5 PSD
Increments--SILs--SMC Rule), 75 FR 64864. Today's proposed action and
the accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) present our rationale
for proposing approval of this submission as part of the Texas PSD SIP
by finding that the Texas PSD SIP includes the requirements to address
these two rulemakings concerning the PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are no PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Texas;
therefore TCEQ is not required to adopt or submit a NNSR program for
PM2.5 implementation as part of the Texas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of State Submittal

    The May 19, 2011, SIP submittal included revisions to two portions
of the Texas SIP--the General Definitions at 30 TAC Section 101.1 and
the Requirements for Permitting by Rule at 30 TAC Section 106.4. The
State's rulemaking also updated the PSD NSR SIP to reflect the
PM2.5 PSD regulations adopted as of December 9, 2013.\2\ In
particular, the State's record demonstrates the intent of the TCEQ for
the Texas PSD SIP rules to regulate upon the state's final rulemaking
action SO2 and NOX as precursors, to account for
condensable PM2.5 emissions in permitting actions, and to
include PM2.5 increment provisions, as required by the 2008
and 2010 PM2.5 NSR rules.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As discussed in Section I, and more fully explained in
Section III, the 1992 SIP approval of the Texas PSD program provides
the state the authority to regulate PM2.5 emissions via
the Texas PSD program. However, the Texas PSD program must be
revised when EPA promulgates new PSD SIP permitting requirements
such as SERs or increments. Once TCEQ undergoes rulemaking to
address these new requirements, the Texas PSD SIP program is then
updated to reflect subsequent federal PSD SIP permitting
requirements if those requirements revise an existing permitting
component that TCEQ has previously undergone rulemaking to address.
For example, if EPA changes a SER in the future for direct
PM2.5 emissions or the PM2.5 precursors
SO2 or NOX, the Texas program would update to
reflect the revised SER without need of a further SIP revision by
the state. Accordingly, by undergoing the revisions in the May 19,
2011 SIP submission to address the federal PM2.5 SIL and
SMC permitting components, the existing Texas PSD permitting SIP is
updated to reflect EPA's rulemaking removing the PM2.5
SIL and SMC on December 9, 2013.
    \3\ This record was submitted to EPA as part of the May 19, 2011
SIP submission, and is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Summary of the Revisions to the General Definitions at 30 TAC
Section 101.1

    The General Air Quality Definitions found in 30 TAC Section 101.1
are

applicable to the entirety of the Texas Air Quality program. The TCEQ
adopted and submitted the following revisions to the General
Definitions:
     The definition of ``de minimis impact'' at 30 TAC Section
101.1(25) was amended to cross reference the significant impact levels
promulgated by EPA at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2).
     The definition of ``particulate matter'' at 30 TAC Section
101.1(75) was amended to include new sub-definitions for
PM10 and PM2.5.
     The definition of ``particulate matter emissions'' at 30
TAC Section 101.1(76) was amended to include new sub-definitions for
direct PM emissions and secondary PM emissions.
     The definition of ``PM10'' at 30 TAC Section
101.1(78) was deleted and moved to the revised definition of
``particulate matter'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(75). Then a new
definition of ``PM2.5 emissions'' was added at 30 TAC
Section 101.1(78).
     The State rulemaking, including the Texas Register
preambles, which describe how the General Definitions and State's PSD
and Minor NSR permitting program are applicable to PM2.5
precursors, and account for condensable PM2.5 emissions was
included in the SIP submittal.

B. Summary of the Revisions to the Requirements for Permitting by Rule
at 30 TAC Section 106.4

    The May 19, 2011 SIP submittal included revisions to 30 TAC Section
106.4 which is under Chapter 106--Permits by Rule (PBR).
    The TCEQ adopted and submitted the following revisions to 30 TAC
Section 106.4 to provide for the permitting of PM2.5
emissions through the use of the Minor NSR SIP PBRs.
     Substantive revisions to 30 TAC Section 106.4(a)(1)
establishing thresholds for emissions of PM2.5 and
PM10,
     Non-substantive revisions to 30 TAC Section 106.4(a)(2) to
correct grammar and formatting,
     Substantive revisions to 30 TAC Section 106.4(a)(4)
establishing thresholds for emissions of PM2.5 and
PM10, and
     Non-substantive revisions to 30 TAC Section 106.4(c) to
correct grammar and formatting.
     The State rulemaking, including the Texas Register
preambles, which describe how the General Definitions and State's PSD
and Minor NSR permitting program are applicable to PM2.5
precursors and condensables was included in the SIP submittal.

III. EPA's Analysis of the May 19, 2011 Texas SIP Submittal

A. Analysis of the May 19, 2011 Revisions to the General Definitions at
30 TAC Section 101.1

    Texas adopted and submitted revisions to the definitions of ``de
minimis impact,'' ``particulate matter,'' ``particulate matter
emissions,'' and ``PM2.5 emissions'' at 30 TAC Sections
101.1(25), (75), (76), and (78) respectively. Following is our analysis
for each of these revised definitions.
     ``De minimis impact'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(25)--The
TCEQ adopted and submitted revisions to the definition of ``de minimis
impact'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(25) to delete the table of values that
explicitly listed SIL values and to add, instead, a cross reference to
the table of SIL values established by EPA at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). EPA
proposes to find that this cross reference to the SILs at 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2), as supplemented by the state's rulemaking record,
appropriately adds the PM2.5 SILs to the Texas air
permitting program and is consistent with the CAA and EPA's
regulations.
     ``Particulate matter'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(75)--The
TCEQ adopted and submitted both non-substantive and substantive
revisions to the SIP-approved definition of ``Particulate Matter''. The
revisions retain the SIP-approved definition for ``particulate matter''
as an introductory paragraph and add new sub-definitions for
PM10 and PM2.5 under this provision. The sub-
definition of ``PM10'' adopted at 30 TAC Section
101.1(75)(A) is a non-substantive change because the TCEQ moved the
previously SIP-approved definition of ``PM10'' at 30 TAC
Section 101.78 to a new sub-definition of ``PM10'' at 30 TAC
Section 101.1(75)(A). EPA proposes to find this non-substantive
revision is consistent with the previously approved SIP and with the
federal definitions of ``particulate matter'' at 40 CFR 51.100(oo),
``particulate matter emissions'' at 40 CFR 51.100(pp),
``PM10'' at 40 CFR 51.100(qq), and ``PM10
emissions'' at 40 CFR 51.100(rr). TCEQ made a substantive revision to
add a new sub-definition of ``PM2.5'' to the definition of
``particulate matter'' under this provision at 30 TAC Section
101.1(75)(B). The new sub-definition of ``PM2.5'' is
consistent with the definitions of ``particulate matter'' and
``particulate matter emissions'' at 40 CFR 51.1000 and the requirements
for PM2.5 at 40 CFR Part 50. EPA proposes to find this
definition is approvable consistent with federal requirements.
     ``Particulate matter emissions'' at 30 TAC Section
101.1(76)--The TCEQ adopted and submitted substantive revisions to the
SIP-approved definition for ``Particulate matter emissions'' at 30 TAC
Section 101.1(76). The revisions retain the SIP-approved definition for
``particulate matter emissions'' as an introductory paragraph and add
new sub-definitions for ``direct PM emissions'' and ``secondary PM
emissions'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(76)(A) and (B), respectively. The
new sub-definition of ``direct PM emissions'' at 30 TAC Section
101.1(76)(A) is consistent with the federal definition for ``direct
PM2.5 emissions'' at 40 CFR 51.1000. The new sub-definition
of ``secondary PM emissions'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(76)(B) is
consistent with the federal definition of ``PM2.5
precursor'' at 40 CFR 51.1000.
     ``PM2.5 Emissions'' at 30 TAC Section
101.1(78)--The TCEQ adopted the deletion of the previously SIP-approved
definition of ``PM10 emissions'' at 30 TAC Section
101.1(78). The SIP-approved definition of ``PM10 emissions''
has been retained in a non-substantive move to the newly created sub-
definition at 30 TAC Section 101.1(75)(B) (see discussion above). The
TCEQ adopted and submitted a new definition for ``PM2.5
Emissions'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(78). The new definition of
``PM2.5 emissions'' is consistent with federal definitions
at 40 CFR 51.100(oo) and (pp) and 51.1000. EPA proposes to find this
definition is approvable consistent with federal requirements.

B. Analysis of the May 19, 2011 Revisions and the Texas PSD Permitting
Program

    EPA issued PSD and NNSR SIP regulations for the PM 2.5 NAAQS in two
recent rules: (1) The NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
promulgated on May 16, 2008, and (2) the PM2.5 PSD
Increments--SILs--SMC Rule promulgated on October 20, 2010. TCEQ
specifically underwent rulemaking as required by state law to ensure
the Texas PSD NSR SIP addresses the federal PSD SIP requirements
concerning the PM2.5 NAAQS as of December 9, 2013, e.g.,
precursors, condensables, and increment.\4\ Because

the TCEQ's intent in the state's rule adoption is clear that the PSD
NSR SIP is intended to address the precursors and condensables as per
EPA's 2008 and 2010 PM2.5 NSR Rules, EPA finds that the
existing Texas PSD permitting program is structured and updated to
address all PSD rules for the PM2.5 NAAQS as of December 9,
2013, when the most recent revisions to the federal PSD program for
PM2.5 were finalized. As previously noted, further state
rulemaking would be needed if EPA promulgated new permitting components
not contemplated in any federal rulemaking, e.g., EPA added a new
precursor. Following is our evaluation of how the Texas PSD NSR SIP
program addresses the NSR implementation requirements for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``The specific intent of the proposed rulemaking
is . . . for implementation of PM2.5 NSR regulations. The
preamble to this rulemaking clarifies how precursors and condensable
emissions are addressed.'' 35 TexReg. 10147, 10147 (November 19,
2010) (preamble to Texas's proposed rule adoption addressing federal
requirements for the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS
NSR Program; finalized 36 TexReg 2841, May 6, 2011) (emphasis
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
a. What are the requirements of the NSR PM2.5 Implementation
Rule for state PSD programs?
    EPA's final NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule required
states to submit applicable SIP revisions to EPA no later than May 16,
2011, to address this Rule's PSD and NNSR SIP requirements. With
respect to PSD permitting, the SIP revision submittals are required to
meet the following PSD SIP requirements to implement the
PM2.5 NAAQS:
    (1) Require PSD permits to address directly emitted
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants that contribute to the
secondary formation of PM2.5;
    (2) establish significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)); and
    (3) account for gases that condense to form particles
(condensables) in PM2.5 and PM10 applicability
determinations and emission limits in PSD permits.
b. How does the Texas PSD program address the requirements of the NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule?
    The May 19, 2011, Texas SIP submittal includes revisions of the
General Definitions in the Texas SIP, as further explained in section
III.A of this proposed rulemaking. Additionally, as required by state
law, the TCEQ, by its rulemaking, updated the existing PSD NSR SIP to
be consistent with the federal PM2.5 NAAQS PSD requirements
as of December 9, 2013. As explained below, the rulemaking record
demonstrates that TCEQ intends for the revised Texas PSD rules to
regulate SO2 and NOX as precursors of
PM2.5 and appropriately account for condensable
PM2.5 emissions. Based on the analysis presented below, in
conjunction with the TCEQ's intent as reflected in the rule adoption,
EPA is proposing to find that the Texas PSD NSR SIP includes all of the
PSD requirements of the 2008 final NSR PM2.5 Implementation
Rule for the following reasons:
    (1) Regulation of Direct PM2.5 and Precursors: The Texas
SIP at 30 TAC Section 116.12 contains definitions applicable to NSR,
including PSD, and that apply to both emissions from direct
PM2.5 and SO2 and NOX as
PM2.5 precursors in the Texas PSD program. The application
of these definitions with respect to PSD major stationary sources and
PSD major modifications will be discussed separately below.
    a. For purposes of PSD permitting, a major source is defined in the
Texas SIP at 30 TAC Section 116.12(17) as a source that emits, or has
the potential to emit a federally regulated new source review pollutant
at levels greater than those identified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1). The
definition of major source refers to the SIP-approved definition for
federally regulated new source review pollutant at 30 TAC Section
116.12(14): ``any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality
standard has been promulgated and any constituents or precursors for
such pollutants identified by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.'' In conjunction with the state law requirement for
a rulemaking action and as explained by TCEQ in the Texas Register
preamble language, this SIP-approved definition of ``federally
regulated new source review pollutant'' is inclusive of the
PM2.5 precursors SO2 and NOX
identified by EPA. This is supported by TCEQ's explicit explanation in
the rule preamble as to which precursors it considers to be
``identified'' by EPA and for purposes of this definition and for PSD
permitting: ``If a new major source will emit, or has the potential to
emit, a significant amount of a regulated NSR pollutant in an
attainment area for that pollutant, the source must apply BACT for each
emissions unit that emits the pollutant. In addition, if a physical
change or operational change at an existing major source will result in
a significant emissions increase and significant net emissions increase
of a regulated NSR pollutant, the source must apply BACT to each
proposed emissions unit experiencing a net increase in emissions of
that pollutant as a result of the physical or operational change in the
unit. Under the PM2.5 PSD program, these requirements will
apply to direct PM2.5 emissions; SO2 emissions;
NOX emissions, unless states demonstrate that NOX
is not a significant contributor to ambient PM2.5
concentrations in that area; and to VOC if identified by a state as a
precursor in the PM2.5 attainment area where the source is
located.'' (36 TexReg 2842).
    EPA therefore proposes to find that as clarified by the TCEQ rule
adoption preamble, the Texas SIP's definition of federally regulated
NSR pollutants is inclusive of the PM2.5 precursors
SO2 and NOX. Additionally, per the Texas PSD NSR
SIP, when determining applicability of the definition of major source
for purposes of the PSD program, direct emissions of PM2.5
and emissions of SO2 and NOX as PM2.5
precursors must be taken into account.
    b. The Texas SIP defines a major modification at 30 TAC Section
116.12(18) as ``any physical change in, or change in the method of
operation of a major stationary source that causes a significant
project emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase for
any federally regulated new source review pollutant.'' Like the
definition of major source, the definition of major modification also
relies on Texas's definition of ``federally regulated new source review
pollutant'' which, as explained in the previous subsection of this
proposed rule (III.B.1.b(1)(a)), the Texas SIP definition of federally
regulated new source review pollutant, as clarified by TCEQ's rule
preamble, identifies SO2 and NOX as
PM2.5 precursors. The definition of major modification goes
on to define what constitutes ``significant project emissions'' by
incorporating by reference the federal significant emission rates at 40
CFR 51.166(b)(23). The significance thresholds at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)
include emission rates for direct PM2.5 and SO2
and NOX as PM2.5 precursors. It is therefore
further clear that emissions of SO2 and NOX as
PM2.5 precursors are applicable to the determination of
whether a source is a major modification.\5\ The Texas SIP therefore
requires evaluation of direct PM2.5 and SO2 and
NOX as PM2.5 precursors as required by EPA's NSR
PM2.5 Implementation rule when determining the applicability
of the definition of major modification. Therefore, EPA proposes to
find the

TCEQ SIP's definition of major modification is inclusive of
SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that the Texas PSD SIP definition of major
modification references the significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and its precursors (SO2 and
NOX) as established at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23), and the Texas
SIP does not currently regulate VOCs as precursors of
PM2.5 for PSD permitting. In order for the Texas SIP to
require PSD permitting for VOCs as PM2.5 precursors, the
TCEQ would need to adopt and submit a separate SIP revision
providing the State's demonstration that emissions of VOCs from
sources in a specific area are a significant contributor to that
area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations. See 73 FR 28321, at
28333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Establish SERs: The SIP-approved Texas PSD program at 30 TAC
Section 116.160(a) requires new major sources and major modifications
to comply with the Texas PSD permitting requirements at 30 TAC Sections
116.160(c)(1)-(4). As discussed in the analysis above at III.B.1.b(1)
and (2), major sources and major modifications are defined by
exceedances of certain levels of emissions, or potential emissions, of
federally regulated new source review pollutants. This includes direct
emissions of PM2.5 and emissions of SO2 and
NOX as PSD precursors of PM2.5. EPA proposes to
find the Texas PSD program now requires the PSD permitting of the
identified PM2.5 PSD precursors SO2 and
NOX for new major stationary sources and major modifications
consistent with the requirements of the 2008 rule, based upon the
existing PSD NSR SIP rules at 30 TAC Sections 116.12 and 116.160--
116.163, and the state's rulemaking record.
    (3) Condensable PM10/PM2.5 Emissions: As
previously mentioned, the May 19, 2011 SIP submission added a new
definition of ``PM2.5 emissions'' in the General Definitions
section at 30 TAC Section 101.1(78). This new definition defines such
emissions, in part, as ``finely-divided solid or liquid material with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable reference
method, or an equivalent or alternative method specified in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 51.'' The applicable reference method in part
51 that applies to the measurement of condensable PM2.5
emissions is Method 202. The definition of ``PM2.5
emissions'' as adopted in 30 TAC Section 101.1(78) therefore requires
the accounting of condensable PM2.5 emissions as required by
the NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule by the definition's
requirement to use the applicable reference methods in 40 CFR Part 51
that measure such emissions. Analogously, the Texas SIP defines
``PM10 emissions'' in the General Definitions section at 30
TAC Section 101.1(79). This definition defines such emissions, in part,
as ``finely-divided solid or liquid material with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers emitted to the
ambient air as measured by an applicable reference method, or an
equivalent or alternative method specified in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 51.'' The applicable reference method in part 51 that
applies to the measurement of condensable PM10 emissions is
also Method 202. The definition of ``PM10 emissions'' as
adopted in 30 TAC Section 101.1(79) therefore requires the accounting
of condensable PM10 emissions as required by the NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule by the definition's requirement to
use the applicable reference methods in 40 CFR Part 51 that measure
such emissions. As noted by TCEQ in the preamble of the State's rule:
``EPA assessed the capabilities of test methods available for measuring
condensable emissions, publishing a final rule for methods of measuring
filterable PM10 and PM2.5 and measuring
condensable PM emissions on December 21, 2010. The final rule
promulgates amendments to Methods 201A and 202. The final amendments to
Method 201A add a particulate-sizing device to allow for sampling of
particulate matter with mean aerodynamic diameters less than or equal
to PM2.5. The final amendments to Method 202 revise the
sample collection and recovery procedures of the method to reduce the
formation of reaction artifacts that could lead to inaccurate
measurements of condensable particulate matter. Additionally, the final
amendments to Method 202 eliminate most of the hardware and analytical
options in the existing method, thereby increasing the precision of the
method and improving the consistency in the measurements obtained
between source tests performed under different regulatory authorities.
This final rule became effective on January 1, 2011.'' See 36 TexReg
2842.
    EPA proposes to find that the Texas Register cited above indicates
that federal reference Methods 201A and 202, in 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix M will be used by TCEQ in the determination of particulate
matter emissions from stationary sources, including condensable
particulate emissions. Such condensable emissions as measured by Method
202 would therefore be considered as PM10 or
PM2.5 emissions as appropriate under the terms of the Texas
SIP. As the definitions in 30 TAC Section 101.1 establish the meaning
and applicability of terms used within the entirety of the Texas SIP,
EPA proposes to find this definition of PM2.5 emissions,
which includes regulation of condensables and as supported by the Texas
rulemaking record, is applicable to the Texas PSD NSR SIP. Furthermore,
the Texas SIP at 30 TAC Section 116.12(14) defines a federally
regulated new source review pollutant to include ``any pollutant for
which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and
any constituents or precursors for such pollutants identified by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.'' Because of the state's
rulemaking record, this definition is sufficient to encompass PSD
permitting for condensables in PM2.5 and PM10
emission limits as a constituent of PM2.5. EPA therefore
proposes to find the Texas PSD NSR SIP now adequately accounts for
regulation of condensable PM10 and PM2.5
emissions in both applicability determinations and emission limitations
as required by the 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule.
c. Litigation on the May 16, 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation
Rule
    On January 4, 2013,the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment
that remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate
these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.'' Id.
at 437. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional
provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas.
    The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule addressed by the
court decision described above, promulgated NSR requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (NNSR)
and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of
Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not
consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements for
PM2.5 in attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected
by the court's opinion. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need
to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule in order to comply with the court's decision.
Accordingly, the EPA's proposed approval of Texas's SIP revisions with
respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.
    The Court's decision with respect to the NNSR requirements
promulgated by the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule also does not affect
the EPA's action on the present proposed approval, as this proposed
approval does not address any of the PM2.5 nonattainment NSR
requirements.
2. The PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule
    a. What are the requirements of the PM2.5 PSD
Increment--SILs--SMC Rule for PSD SIP programs?

    EPA finalized the PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule to
provide additional regulatory requirements under the PSD SIP program
regarding the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR
64864. The PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule required
states to submit SIP revisions to EPA by July 20, 2012, adopting
provisions equivalent to or at least as stringent as the PSD increments
and associated implementing regulations. Specifically, the SIP rule
requires a state's submitted PSD SIP revision to adopt and submit for
EPA approval the PM2.5 increments pursuant to section 166(a)
of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas
meeting the NAAQS. States were also required to adopt and submit for
EPA approval revisions to the definitions for ``major source baseline
date,'' ``minor source baseline date,'' and ``baseline area''--as part
of the implementing regulations for the PM2.5 increment.
States could also discretionarily choose to adopt and submit for EPA
approval SILs used as a screening tool to evaluate the impact a
proposed new major source or major modification may have on the NAAQS
or PSD increment, and a SMC (also a screening tool) to determine the
subsequent level of data gathering required for a PSD permit
application for emissions of PM2.5. More detail on the
PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule can be found in EPA's
October 20, 2010 final rule. See 75 FR 64864.
    b. How does the May 19, 2011 Texas SIP submittal satisfy the
required increment component of the PM2.5 Increment--SILs--
SMC Rule?
    With respect to the required increment component of the
PM2.5 Increment--SILs--SMC Rule, as required by state law,
the TCEQ adopted the required rules on April 20, 2011, and submitted
the SIP revision to implement those rules on May 19, 2011. As the
record reflects, this rulemaking was intended to address, in part, the
federal regulations promulgated by EPA's PM2.5 Increment--
SILs--SMC Rule. By undergoing this rulemaking, the TCEQ effectuated
regulation of the required PM2.5 increment component of
Texas PSD permitting program on April 20, 2011 when adopting the May
19, 2011 SIP submission. The Texas PSD NSR SIP requirements at 30 TAC
Sections 116.160(c)(1)-(4) must be met by proposed sources meeting the
definitions of major source or major modification at 30 TAC Sections
116.12(17) and 116.12(18), respectively. The Texas PSD NSR SIP at 30
TAC Section 116.160(c)(2)(A) currently incorporates the federal
requirements for PSD increments and the associated implementing
requirements found at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14), (b)(15) and (c). Once the
TCEQ underwent rulemaking intended to address the EPA's 2010
PM2.5 PSD SIP regulations, the existing Texas SIP rule at 30
TAC Section 116.160(c)(2)(A), which incorporates the federal
requirements for PSD increments found at 40 CFR 52.21(c) and the
implementing regulations defining the terms ``major source baseline
date'' and ``minor source baseline date'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14) and
the definition for ``baseline area'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15), was then
by state law inclusive of the PM2.5 PSD increment and the
implementing regulations in the federal PSD regulations. EPA is
therefore proposing to find that the Texas PSD NSR SIP now includes the
PM2.5 increments and associated implementing regulations,
and these increments and implementing regulations are applicable
requirements for sources and modifications that are major for
PM2.5 and/or the identified precursors of SO2 and
NOX. EPA proposes to find that no further revisions to the
Texas PSD NSR SIP are necessary to implement the federal
PM2.5 increment requirements in Texas.
c. How does the May 19, 2011 Texas SIP submittal address the optional
SILs and SMC components of the PM2.5 Increment--SILs--SMC
Rule?
    As a preliminary note, there has been litigation over the 2010
PM2.5 Increment--SILs--SMC Rule which prompted EPA to issue
a rulemaking to address the outcome of that litigation as it addressed
the optional SILs and SMC components of the Rule. On January 22, 2013,
the U.S. Court of Appeals granted a request from the EPA to vacate and
remand to the EPA portions of the federal PSD regulations (40 CFR
51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2)) establishing the SILs for
PM2.5 so that the EPA could reconcile the inconsistency
between the regulatory text and certain statements in the preamble to
the 2010 final rule. Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463-64 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). The court declined to vacate the different portion of the
federal PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) establishing SILs for
PM2.5 that did not contain the same inconsistency in the
regulatory text. Id. at 465-66. The court further vacated the portions
of the PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)) establishing a PM2.5 SMC, finding that
the EPA lacked legal authority to adopt and use the PM2.5
SMC to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement to
compile and submit ambient monitoring data. Id. at 468-69. On December
9, 2013, EPA issued a good cause final rule formally removing the
affected SILs and SMC provisions from the CFR. See 78 FR 73698.
    With respect to the optional SILs component of the PM2.5
Increment--SILs--SMC Rule, the May 19, 2011 SIP submittal included a
revised definition of ``de minimis impact'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(25)
to incorporate by reference the SILs table at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2),
including the SILs for PM2.5. The Texas PSD NSR SIP program
at 30 TAC Section 116.161 identifies the required demonstrations for
PSD applicability and the SIP-approved PSD program's interaction with
the 30 TAC Section 101.1(25) ``de minimis impact'' revised definition:
``The commission may not issue a permit to any new major stationary
source or major modification located in an area designated as
attainment or unclassifiable, for any NAAQS if ambient air impacts from
the proposed source would cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS. In order to obtain a permit, the source must reduce the impact
of its emissions upon air quality by obtaining sufficient emission
reductions to eliminate the predicted exceedances of the NAAQS. A major
source or major modification will be considered to cause or contribute
to a violation of a NAAQS when the emissions from such source or
modification, would at a minimum, exceed the de minimis impact levels
specified in Sec.  101.1 of this title (relating to Definitions) at any
locality that is designated as nonattainment or is predicted to be
nonattainment for the applicable standard.'' (Emphasis added.) This
definition is analogous to the regulatory text in the federal
regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2).
    The principle laid out in this provision is that a new or modified
source may not obtain a permit if it will cause or contribute to the
violation of a NAAQS. Such source must reduce the impact of its
emissions in order to obtain a permit. Per the definition of ``de
minimis impact,'' a source is considered to cause or contribute to
nonattainment air quality, ``at a minimum'' when the impact exceeds the
de minimis impact levels. Thus, the language of the provision does not
constrain TCEQ's discretion to determine that a source causes or
contributes to a violation of the NAAQS even when the impact is below
the de minimis impact levels.
    EPA is proposing to find the SIP rule at 30 TAC Section 116.161 and
its cross-reference to the revised definition of ``de minimis impact''
to be consistent with EPA's interpretation of the SILs established at
40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). The

court in Sierra Club acknowledged that the regulatory language at 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2) does not restrict a permitting authority's discretion
to require a more comprehensive showing that the source does not cause
or contribute to a NAAQS violation even where the impact is below the
SIL. , 705 F.3d at 465. By extension, EPA finds that the revised
definition of ``de minimis impact'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(25), as
submitted for approval into the Texas SIP, would also not restrict the
TCEQ's discretion to require a more comprehensive analysis as described
above. Therefore, EPA proposes to find the May 19, 2011 submitted
revisions to the definition of ``de minimis impact'' at 30 TAC Section
101.1(25) are approvable.
    Furthermore, with respect to both the optional SILs and SMC
components of the PM2.5 Increment--SILs--SMC Rule, as
previously discussed the court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated certain
portions of the federal PSD regulations addressing PM2.5
SILs and SMC. On December 9, 2013, EPA issued a good cause final rule
removing the affected provisions from the CFR. See 78 FR 73698. As
explained throughout this notice, the TCEQ effectuated regulation of
emissions of PM2.5 through the Texas PSD NSR SIP in the May
19, 2011 SIP submission, thereby updating the existing Texas SIP to be
consistent with the federal PM2.5 PSD requirements in the
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule and the PM2.5
Increment--SILs--SMC Rule. The existing Texas PSD SIP at 30 TAC Section
116.160(c)(2)(A) incorporates the federal provisions 40 CFR
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(k)(2). Because the TCEQ's rulemaking
updated the PSD NSR SIP to incorporate the permitting components of the
PM2.5 Increment--SILs--SMC Rule, the existing Texas PSD
permitting program is also intended to be consistent with and
incorporate any future revised federal regulations in support of the
rule. As a result of EPA's good cause final rulemaking discussed above,
the federal requirements for PM2.5 PSD regulation no longer
include the PM2.5 SMC and SIL provisions at 40 CFR
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(k)(2), respectively, that were promulgated
in the PM2.5 Increment--SILs--SMC Rule. The existing Texas
PSD permitting program as structured in turn no longer includes these
same PM2.5 SMC and SIL provisions.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to find the SIP-approved Texas PSD program
is consistent with the federal requirements because the Texas program
no longer includes the PM2.5 SMC and SIL provisions
contained at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(k)(2).

C. Analysis of the May 19, 2011 Revisions to the Texas Minor NSR
Permitting Programs

    The promulgation of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
established the basic requirement to protect human health and public
welfare from emissions of PM2.5. As discussed in section
II.B. of today's rulemaking, EPA promulgated specific revisions to
major source permitting programs to implement the new NAAQS
requirements through the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
and 2010 PM2.5 Increment--SILs--SMC Rule. EPA has not
promulgated separate revisions to the Minor NSR requirements to
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, however, section 110(a)(2)(C) and
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-164 require that a State's Minor NSR
program address all promulgated NAAQS. As of the effective date of the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the TCEQ's Minor NSR SIP required
a preconstruction permit for any new construction or modification of
these emissions.
    The Texas Minor NSR Permitting Program includes several options for
minor permit authorizations--including case-by case minor permits and
amendments, permit alterations, standard permits, and permits by rule.
The TCEQ did not need to make any revisions to the SIP-approved Minor
NSR permitting program at 30 TAC Chapter 116 to meet federal
requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS. In its May 19, 2011 SIP
submission, however, the TCEQ submitted revisions to its PBR SIP rules.
    The Texas PBR program is a SIP-approved Minor NSR permitting option
at 30 TAC Chapter 106. EPA approved Texas's regulations for PBR on
November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64543). As described in further detail in that
Federal Register notice, a PBR is a Minor NSR permit which is adopted
under 30 TAC Chapter 106 (see 68 FR 64543, at 68454-68455). The Texas
PBR Minor NSR program provides an alternative process for approving the
construction of certain new and modified facilities or changes within
facilities which TCEQ has determined will not make a significant
contribution of air contaminants to the atmosphere. These rules provide
a streamlined mechanism for approving the construction of certain
facilities which would otherwise be required to apply for and receive a
case-by-case Minor NSR permit before commencing construction or
modification. Under the Texas SIP a PBR is limited by parameters to
ensure its appropriate use as a Minor NSR permit in compliance with the
Minor NSR requirements of the Texas SIP and 40 CFR Part 51.
    The revisions submitted May 19, 2011, lower existing SIP thresholds
for PM10 and PM2.5 to match them with EPA's
significant emission rates, therefore making the SIP more stringent and
also ensuring that a PBR for emissions of these pollutants will not
cause or contribute to a violation of the two NAAQS and meet the Minor
NSR SIP requirements. This is supported by the following:
    (1) The maximum emission level authorized for PM10 is
established at 15 tpy which is the same as the significant emission
rate (SER) for that pollutant in Major NSR under 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 51.166(b)(23)(i). As discussed at 70 FR 65984,
at 65098 (November 1, 2005), EPA set the PM10 SER at 15 tpy
because the ambient impact of PM10 at this level is about 4
percent of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. This is less than the
current SIP level for inhalable particulate matter (PM10) at
25 tpy.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The current SIP provides a threshold for inhalable
particulate matter (PM10) at 25 tpy. In this revision,
the indicator for inhalable particulate matter was changed from
PM10 to PM. The threshold for PM is 25 tpy, which is
identical to the significant emission rate for particulate matter
(PM) (or ``Total Suspended Particulates'' (TSP)) at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 51.166(b)(23)(i). As documented at 45 FR
52676, at 52707 (August 7, 1980), the significant emission rate of
PM was established at a level that is no greater than 4 percent of
the 24-hour primary standard for PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) In the existing SIP, the maximum emission level authorized for
PM2.5 is 25 tpy.\7\ The revised maximum emission level
authorized for PM2.5 through the May 19, 2011 SIP submission
is established at 10 tpy which is the same as the SER for that
pollutant in Major NSR under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and
51.166(b)(23)(i). As discussed at 70 FR 65984, at 65098 (November 1,
2005), EPA set the PM2.5 SER at 10 tpy at which its ambient
impact is about 4 percent of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The current SIP does not provide an explicit threshold for
PM2.5, but provides a catch all threshold of 25 tpy for
pollutants not specifically listed in 30 TAC 106.4(a)(1).
    \8\ The PM2.5 significant level was based upon annual
average because the annual average is the controlling standard for
the PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR 65984, at 65098.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) EPA established the significant emission rates for
PM10 and PM2.5 at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and
51.166(b)(23)(i) as the basis for determining applicability under the
Major NSR Programs, based upon modeled impacts which demonstrate that
emissions at or below the significant level is less than 4 percent of
the applicable NAAQS. This level of

impact would also apply to emissions from any source, including changes
at both major and minor sources. As it applies to Minor NSR (which
includes the Texas PBR Program), any emissions of PM10 and
PM2.5 that are equal to or less than 15 and 10 tpy,
respectively, are anticipated to have an air quality impact that is
less than 4 percent of the NAAQS.
    (4) Accordingly, we would expect that the emissions of
PM10 and PM2.5 below maximum emission levels
established in the Texas PBR Program will only result in small impacts
on the ambient air quality (less than 4 percent of the NAAQS for
PM10 and PM2.5) and would not cause or contribute
to violations of the NAAQS.
    In sum, the PM2.5 thresholds adopted for the PBR program
are both more stringent than the existing SIP's thresholds, and are
equivalent to the federal SERs, which are rates of emissions EPA found
to be less than significant. EPA therefore finds adoption of these
thresholds for PM2.5 in the Minor NSR PBR program to
analogously be less than significant, and not violate the federal Minor
NSR requirements. Furthermore, there is no data demonstrating that
emissions below these thresholds will not meet the federal Minor NSR
requirements. Additionally, there are currently no areas in the state
of Texas designated nonattainment for either the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore proposes to find that, as
discussed above, the submitted PBR thresholds for PM10 and
PM2.5 will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of
a NAAQS for these pollutants, will not violate applicable requirements
of the control strategy, will not interfere with reasonable further
progress, and will not interfere with any applicable requirement of the
Act. Accordingly, the submitted PBR thresholds for PM10 and
PM2.5 meet the requirements of the Act at 110(a)(2)(A) and
(C) and 110(l) and also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(a).
Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the Texas Minor NSR SIP for
PBRs, as revised, meets the permitting requirements for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes to approve the revisions to the Texas SIP at 30 TAC
Sections 101.1 and 106.4 submitted on May 19, 2011 for the
implementation of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that the May 19, 2011 revisions to
30 TAC Sections 101.1 and 106.4 are approvable because they are adopted
and submitted in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, under section
110 and part C of the Act and for the reasons stated above, EPA
proposes to approve the following revisions to the Texas SIP:
     Substantive revisions to the definition of ``de minimis
impact'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(25),
     Substantive revisions to the definition of ``particulate
matter'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(75),
     Substantive revisions to the definition of ``particulate
matter emissions'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(76),
     Substantive revisions to the definition of
``PM2.5 emissions'' at 30 TAC Section 101.1(78),
     Substantive revisions to the requirements for permits by
rule at 30 TAC Sections 106.4(a)(1) and, (a)(4), and
     Non-substantive revisions to the requirements for permits
by rule at 30 TAC Sections 106.4(a)(2) and (c) to correct for
formatting and grammar.
    EPA is also proposing to find that the Texas PSD NSR SIP meets the
PM2.5 PSD requirements contained in the federal regulations
as of December 9, 2013, including regulation of NOX and
SO2 as PM2.5 PSD precursors, regulation of
condensables, and PM2.5 increments.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 3, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-03322 Filed 2-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 68288-68289]
[DOCID:fr23de09-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Regulation R, Rule 701; SEC File No. 270-562; OMB Control No.
3235-0624.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Regulation R, Rule 701 (17
CFR 247.701) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation R, Rule 701 requires a broker or dealer (as part of a
written agreement between the bank and the broker or dealer) to notify
the bank if the broker or dealer makes certain determinations regarding
the financial status of the customer, a bank employee's statutory
disqualification status, and compliance with suitability or
sophistication standards.
    The Commission estimates that brokers or dealers would, on average,
notify 1,000 banks approximately two times annually about a
determination regarding a customer's high net worth or institutional
status or suitability or sophistication standing as well as a bank
employee's statutory disqualification status. Based on these estimates,
the Commission anticipates that Regulation R, Rule 701 would result in
brokers or dealers making approximately 2,000 notices to banks per
year. The Commission further estimates (based on the level of
difficulty and complexity of the applicable activities) that a broker
or dealer would spend approximately 15 minutes per notice to a bank.
Therefore, the estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden for the

requirements in Regulation R, Rule 701 are 500 \1\ hours for brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ (2000 notices x 15 minutes) = 30,000 minutes/60 minutes =
500 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     December 16, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30431 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11068-11069]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-12-011]

Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency and Enhancing
Resilience Through Improved Software; Notice of Technical Conference:
Increasing Real-Time and Day-Ahead Market Efficiency and Enhancing
Resilience Through Improved Software

    Take notice that Commission staff will convene a technical
conference on June 23, 24, and 25, 2020 to discuss opportunities for
increasing real-time and day-ahead market efficiency and enhancing the
resilience of the bulk power system through improved software. A
detailed agenda with the list of and times for the selected speakers
will be published on the Commission's website \1\ after May 22, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/market-planning.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff has held similar conferences in this proceeding in the past
years, focused on enhancing market and planning efficiency and the
resilience of the bulk power system. As in past conferences, this
conference will bring together experts from diverse backgrounds and
experiences, including electric system operators, software developers,
and those from government, research centers and academia for the
purposes of stimulating discussion, sharing information, and
identifying fruitful avenues for research concerning the technical
aspects of improved software for increasing efficiency and resilience
of the bulk power system.
    This conference is intended to build on those previous discussions.
Staff will be facilitating discussions to explore research and
operational advances with respect to market modeling that appear to
have significant promise for potential efficiency or resilience
improvements. Broadly, such topics fall into the following categories:
    (1) Improvements to the representation of physical constraints that
are either not currently modeled or currently modeled using
mathematical approximations (e.g., voltage and reactive power
constraints, stability constraints, fuel delivery constraints, and
constraints related to contingencies);
    (2) Consideration of uncertainty to better maximize economic
efficiency (expected market surplus) and better understand events that
could impact resilience of the bulk power system, e.g., stochastic
modeling, or other improved modeling approaches to energy and reserve
dispatch and system planning that efficiently manage uncertainty;
    (3) Software related to grid-enhancing technologies, such as those
described in the notices for Docket No. AD19-19, Grid-enhancing
Technologies, and Docket No. AD19-15, Managing Transmission Line
Ratings, including optimal transmission switching, dynamic line
ratings, distributed energy resources, and software for forecasting and
enhancing visibility into changing system conditions.
    (4) Improvements to the ability to identify and use flexibility in
the existing systems in ways that improve bulk power system resilience
and economic efficiency, e.g., transmission constraint relaxation
practices, and ramp management;
    (5) Improvements to the duality interpretations of the economic
dispatch model, with the goal of enabling the calculation of prices
which represent better equilibrium and incentives for efficient entry
and exit;
    (6) Limitations of current electricity market software due to its
interaction with hardware, for example, parallel computing and better
cache management;
    (7) Other improvements in algorithms, model formulations, or
hardware that may allow for increases in market efficiency and enhanced
bulk power system resilience.
    Within these or related topics, we encourage presentations that
discuss best modeling practices, existing modeling practices that need
improvement, any advances made, or related perspectives on increasing

market efficiency and resilience through improved power systems
modeling.
    The technical conference will be held at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426. All interested participants are invited to attend, and
participants with ideas for relevant presentations are invited to
nominate themselves to speak at the conference.
    Speaker nominations must be submitted on or before April 17, 2020
through the Commission's website \2\ by providing the proposed
speaker's contact information along with a title, abstract, and list of
contributing authors for the proposed presentation. Proposed
presentations should be related to the topics discussed above. Speakers
and presentations will be selected to ensure relevant topics and to
accommodate time constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/real-market-6-23-20-speaker-form.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although registration is not required for general attendance by
United States citizens, we encourage those planning to attend the
conference to register through the Commission's website.\3\ We will
provide nametags for those who register on or before June 5, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The registration form is located at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/real-market-6-23-20-form.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We strongly encourage attendees who are not citizens of the United
States to register for the conference by April 24, 2020, in order to
avoid any delay associated with being processed by FERC security.
    The Commission will accept comments following the conference, with
a deadline of July 31, 2020.
    There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Commission's website that
enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is
added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    WebEx streaming of this conference will be available. Off-site
participants interested in listening via teleconference or listening
and viewing the presentations through WebEx must register at by 5:00
p.m. EST on June 12, 2020. WebEx and teleconferencing may not be
available to those who do not register.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For further information about these conferences, please contact:

Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Alexander Smith (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03795 Filed 2-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 11532]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4411]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3984-004]

Algonquin Power Company; Abenaki Timber Corporation; Notice of
Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed February 7, 2012, Algonquin Power Company
informed the Commission that its exemption from licensing for the South
Milton Project No. 3984, originally issued January 30, 1981,\1\ has
been transferred to Abenaki Timber Corporation. The project is located
on the South Milton River in Stafford County, New Hampshire. The
transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 FERC ] 62,423, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less and Denying
Competing Application for Preliminary Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Abenaki Timber Corporation, located at 16 Church Street,
Kingston, New Hampshire 03848 is now the exemptee of the South Milton
Project No. 3984.

    Dated: February 16, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4411 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52392-52394]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18559]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89615; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Article IV, Section
4.05 of the Thirteenth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the
Exchange

August 19, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 7, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 Article IV, Section 4.05 of the
Thirteenth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the Exchange
(``Operating Agreement''), to allow the use of regulatory fines for
charitable donations, and to make additional conforming and non-
substantive edits. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Article IV, Section 4.05 (Limitation
on Distributions) of the Exchange's Operating Agreement to allow the
use of regulatory fines for charitable donations, and to make
additional conforming and non-substantive edits.
    Currently, regulatory fines and other regulatory income may only be
used to fund the Exchange's legal, regulatory and surveillance
operations, and may not be distributed.\3\ However, the size of a
regulatory fine is not related to the regulatory or legal budget of the
Exchange. Rather, it is tailored to address the misconduct at issue in
the matter for which it is levied. As a result, there may be times when
the amount of the regulatory fines collected by the Exchange regulatory
staff, when combined with regulatory fees and other regulatory income,
is greater than the amount needed to fund the legal, regulatory and
surveillance operations. The Exchange proposes that on such occasions
it be able to distribute money obtained from regulatory fines to
charity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Thirteenth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
New York Stock Exchange LLC, Art. IV, Sec. 4.05; see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 79115 (October 18, 2016), 81 FR 73187
(October 24, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-66) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Article IV, Section
4.05 of the Tenth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the
Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that any such charitable donations be subject
to approval by the Regulatory Oversight Committee (``ROC''). All ROC
members are members of the Board of Directors that meet the
requirements of the independence policy of the Exchange, and the ROC is
charged with reviewing the regulatory budget of the Exchange and
inquiring into the adequacy of resources available in the budget for
regulatory activities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Operating Agreement, Article II, Section 2.03(h)(ii) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75288 (June 24, 2015), 80 FR
37316 (June 30, 2015) (SR- NYSE-2015-27) (Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending the Eighth Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement of the Exchange To Establish a Regulatory
Oversight Committee as a Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Exchange and Make Certain Conforming Amendments to Exchange Rules).
The independence policy is subject to Commission review. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85913 (May 22, 2019), 84 FR
24853 (May 29, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-27) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of the Exchange).

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

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 4.05 as follows
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(proposed additions italicized):

    Any regulatory assets or any regulatory fees, fines or penalties
collected by the Company's regulatory staff will be applied to fund
the legal, regulatory and surveillance operations of the Company,
and the Company shall not distribute such assets, fees, fines or
penalties to the Member or any other entity, with the exception that
regulatory fines may be used to make charitable donations, subject
to approval by the ROC.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would be consistent
with previous rules of the Exchange regarding fine income.
Specifically, between 2007 and 2016 the Exchange was subject to certain
internal procedures regarding the use of fine income (the ``Fine Income
Procedures'').\5\ The Fine Income Procedures provided that the NYSE
Regulation, Inc. Board of Directors could determine to use unused fine
income that had accumulated beyond a level reasonably necessary for
future contingencies for a charitable purpose.\6\ The ROC assumed that
responsibility from the Board of Directors of NYSE Regulation, Inc.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78326 (July 14,
2016), 81 FR 47184 (July 20, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-37) (Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Removing From Its Rules Certain
Internal Procedures Regarding the Use of Fine Income).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77899 (May 24,
2016), 81 FR 34393 (May 31, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-37) (Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Removing From Its Rules Certain
Internal Procedures Regarding the Use of Fine Income).
    \7\ See 80 FR 37316, supra note 4, at note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make technical and conforming changes to
the recitals and signature page of the Operating Agreement.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \8\ in general, and Section
6(b)(1) \9\ in particular, in that it enables the Exchange to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Exchange Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
exchange members and persons associated with its exchange members, with
the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change also is consistent with Section 6(b)(4),\10\
which requires that the rules of the exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among the
exchange's members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,
and Section 6(b)(5),\11\ which requires that the rules of the exchange
be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would allow the
Exchange to be so organized as to comply, and to enforce compliance by
its exchange members and persons associated with its exchange members,
with the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange, because the proposed change
would recognize that the size of a regulatory fine is not related to
the regulatory or legal budget of the Exchange, and as a result there
may be times when the amount of the regulatory fines collected by the
Exchange regulatory staff, when combined with regulatory fees and other
regulatory income, is greater than the amount needed to fund the legal,
regulatory and surveillance operations. In such a case, the proposed
change would give the Exchange the option to make charitable donations
using regulatory fines.
    The Exchange believes that it would be appropriate to permit
charitable donations because such donations would not be commercial in
nature. Indeed, by keeping them unavailable for commercial
distributions or other commercial purposes, the proposed amended
Section 4.05 would continue to ``guard against the possibility that
fines may be assessed to respond to budgetary needs rather than to
serve a disciplinary purpose.'' \12\ It would ``continue to help ensure
that the Exchange does not inappropriately use its regulatory assets,
fees, fines or penalties for commercial purposes or to distribute such
assets, fees, fines or penalties to its direct parent, NYSE Group,
Inc., or to any other entity.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 81 FR 34393, supra note 6, at 34395, citing Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55216 (January 31, 2007), 72 FR 5779
(February 7, 2007) (NYSE-2006-109), at 5780.
    \13\ 81 FR 47184, supra note 5, at 47187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among the Exchange's members.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would promote just
and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because
requiring ROC approval would facilitate an independent assessment of
proposed charitable donations using regulatory fines. The Exchange
believes that it is appropriate to have the ROC evaluate proposed
charitable donations not only because its members are independent, but
also because the ROC is responsible for overseeing the Exchange's
regulatory and self-regulatory organization responsibilities and
assessing its regulatory performance, including reviewing the
regulatory budget of the Exchange and inquiring into the adequacy of
resources available in the budget for regulatory activities.\14\ As a
result, the ROC would be able to evaluate a proposed charitable
donation within the context of the Exchange's regulatory
responsibilities and resources. Indeed, as it has previously noted, the
Exchange ``believes that the responsibility to assure the proper
exercise by Exchange regulatory staff of the Exchange's power to fine
member organizations . . . properly lies with the ROC . . . .'' \15\
That responsibility extends to the proposed use of regulatory fines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Operating Agreement, Article II, Section 2.03(h)(ii).
    \15\ 81 FR 34393, supra note 6, at 34397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule
change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is
concerned solely with the administration and functioning of the
Exchange.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register, or such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2020-67 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-67. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-67, and should be submitted on
or before September 15, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18559 Filed 8-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Proposed Rule:  Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subpart A and I under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule
Meeting Documentation:  Phone Communication with 3M, March 28, 2012

Date
Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #)
Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible)
Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.)
Written Comments Provided?
Did they also submit to Docket?
Date sent to EPA- CCD

3/28/12

Lisa Grogan-McCulloch
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-343-9743

3M
On the phone:
Jeff Muffat - Environmental Regulatory Affairs
Dana Schnobrich - Senior Environmental Engineering Specialist, Materials Resources Division
Kurt Werner - Business Manager, Electronics Markets Materials Division

Among the issues: CBI determinations and trade secret concerns for subpart L
Submitted comments to the docket