[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31396-31397]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1142; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-25]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Portland-Hillsboro, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace at Portland-Hillsboro
Airport, Portland-Hillsboro, OR, to accommodate aircraft departing and
arriving under Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
Also, the geographic coordinates are updated for the airport. This
action, initiated by the biennial review of the Portland-Hillsboro
airspace area, improves the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, August 22, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 21, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend controlled airspace at
Portland-Hillsboro, OR (77 FR 75593). This action was initiated by a
biennial review of the airspace. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000,
6002 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012,
and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to
Class D surface area. The size of the Class E airspace to the northwest
has been reduced, the Class E airspace to the south removed, and
additional Class E airspace created south southeast of the Portland-
Hillsboro Airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also are
updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action
enhances the safety and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code.
Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies
controlled airspace at Portland-Hillsboro Airport, Portland-Hillsboro,
OR.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,''

paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ANM OR D Portland-Hillsboro, OR [Modified]

Portland-Hillsboro Airport, OR
    (Lat. 45[deg]32'26'' N., long. 122[deg]57'01'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Portland-Hillsboro
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

ANM OR E2 Portland-Hillsboro, OR [Modified]

Portland-Hillsboro Airport, OR
    (Lat. 45[deg]32'26'' N., long. 122[deg]57'01'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of Portland-Hillsboro Airport. This Class E airspace
area is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to
Class D surface area.

* * * * *

ANM OR E4 Portland-Hillsboro, OR [Modified]

Portland-Hillsboro Airport, OR
    (Lat. 45[deg]32'26'' N., long. 122[deg]57'01'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 144[deg] bearing of the airport extending from the
4.2-mile radius to 5.5 miles southeast of the airport and within 1.5
miles each side of the 323[deg] bearing of the airport extending
from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the
airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 12, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-12314 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53262-53263]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5456; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-11]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Linton, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E en route domestic airspace in
the Linton, ND, area. Controlled airspace is necessary at Linton
Municipal Airport to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) aircraft under control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control
Center (ARTCC). This action enhances the safety and management of IFR
operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Linton Municipal Airport,
Linton, ND.

History

    On May 6, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E Airspace at Linton
Municipal Airport, Linton, ND (81 FR 27356) Docket No. FAA-2016-5456.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One
comment in support of the proposal was received from the National
Business Aviation Association.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface within a 125-mile radius of Linton Municipal Airport,
Linton, ND, to facilitate vectoring of IFR aircraft under control of
Minneapolis ARTCC. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations within the NAS.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6006 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

AGL ND E6 Linton, ND [New]

Linton Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 46[deg]13'14'' N., long. 100[deg]14'44'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within a 125-mile radius of Linton Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 29, 2016.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-19011 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 42473-42474]
[DOCID:fr21jy10-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending July 10, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for

each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0181.
    Date Filed: July 9, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: July 30, 2010.
    Description: Application of National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a
National Airlines requesting an amended certificate of public
convenience and necessity, authorizing it to conduct interstate and
foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail with
large aircraft.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-17768 Filed 7-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 24087]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09479]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL16-55-000QF11-204-002QF11-205-002]

Interconnect Solar Development LLC; Notice of Petition for
Enforcement

    Take notice that on April 18, 2016, pursuant to section 210 m of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C.
824a-3(b), Interconnect Solar Development LLC filed a Petition for
Enforcement alleging unlawful cancellation of QF Power Purchase
Agreement and requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) to reincorporate previous FERC Docket Nos. EL13-51-000,
Docket No. QF11-204-001 and QF11-205-001.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 9, 2016.

    Dated: April 19, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09479 Filed 4-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA Presentation at National Institute for Storage Management (NISTM) Conference
                                March 28, 2012

EPA staff presented an overview of the proposed changes to the UST regulation and answered questions on the proposal. The conversation focused on the proposal to remove the deferral from airport hydrant systems.

Attendees:
Tim Smith, EPA
Bill Frye, C& S Cos.
Neal Edington, Fuel Tech Inc.
Charles Tiso, ATS
Christopher Vert, Argus Consulting, Inc.
Kevin Murphy, Enterprise Engineering, Inc.
Gilbert Merchant, Bangor International Airport
Alex Sanchez, Cherokee Enterprises
Roberto Finale, Vecenergy
John Doerr, Vecenergy
Steve Barker, Airlines for America
Mark Bourdeau, United Airlines
Grant Smith, Burns and McDonnell
Don Conrad, Corrpro Companies
Karl Overman, HCNA LLC
Charles Fenton, HCNA LLC
Erik Nakutariaus, Port Authority of NY and NJ
Tom Gray, NM Env Dept
Cindy Gray, Souder, Miller, and Assoc.
Weston Bennett, ASIG-ANC
Dan Carrington, GOAA
Matt Stevens, Servisair
Chris Basher, MN Pollution Control Agency
William White, Seaport Canaveral
Mike Kennell, ASIG-ANC
John Currier, Currier and Company, Inc.
Alfred Reid, Broward County Environmental Protect.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80515-80516]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0164]

National Boating Safety Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) and its
subcommittees will meet on January 14-16, 2011, in Orlando, Florida.
NBSAC discusses issues relating to recreational boating safety. The
meetings will be open to the public.

DATES: NBSAC will meet Friday, January 14, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 12:15
p.m. and Sunday, January 16, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The Boats and
Associated Equipment Subcommittee will meet on Friday, January 14, 2011
from 1:45 p.m. to 5 p.m. The Prevention through People Subcommittee
will meet on Saturday, January 15, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., and
the Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Planning Subcommittee will
meet on Saturday, January 15, 2011, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Please
note that the meetings may conclude early if NBSAC has completed all
business.
    All written materials, comments, and requests to make oral
presentations at the meetings should reach Mr. Jeff Ludwig, Assistant
Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) for NBSAC by December 30, 2010, via
one of the methods described in ADDRESSES. Requests to have a copy of
your material distributed to each member of the Council prior to the
meeting should reach Mr. Ludwig by December 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held in the San Juan Ballroom of the
Embassy Suites Orlando--Downtown, 191 East Pine Street, Orlando, FL
32801.
    Please send written material, comments, and requests to make oral
presentations to Mr. Jeff Ludwig, ADFO for NBSAC, by one of the
submission methods described below. All materials, comments, and
requests must be identified by docket number USCG-2010-0164.
    Submission Methods: Please use only one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket
number in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Jeff Ludwig, COMDT (CG-54221), 2100 2nd Street,
SW., Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``U.S. Coast Guard'' and docket number USCG-2010-0164. All submissions
received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.) You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
submissions received by the NBSAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Ludwig, ADFO for NBSAC, COMDT
(CG-54221), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593;
(202) 372-1061<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
Congress established NBSAC in the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (Pub.
L. 92-75). NBSAC currently operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C.
13110, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
Commandant of the Coast Guard by delegation, to consult with NBSAC in
prescribing regulations for recreational vessels and associated
equipment, and on other major boating safety matters. See 46 U.S.C.
4302(c) and 13110(c).

Tentative Agendas of Meetings

    The agenda for the January 14, 2011 NBSAC meeting is as follows:
    (1) Opening Remarks--Mr. James P. Muldoon, NBSAC Chairman.
    (2) Receipt and discussion of the following reports:
    (a) Chief, Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety Update on NBSAC
Resolutions and Recreational Boating Safety Program report.
    (b) Executive Secretary's report.
    (c) Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) Liaison's report.
    (d) Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC) Liaison's report.
    (e) National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
(NASBLA) report.
    (f) Boating Industry Risk Management Council (BIRMC) Liaison's
report.
    (3) Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee meeting to discuss
current regulatory projects, grants, contracts, and new issues
affecting boats and associated equipment.
    Saturday, January 15, 2011:
    (4) Prevention through People Subcommittee meeting to discuss
current regulatory projects, grants, contracts, and new issues
affecting the prevention of boating accidents through outreach and
education of boaters.
    (5) Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Planning Subcommittee
meeting to discuss current status of the strategic planning process and
any new issues or factors that could impact, or contribute to, the
development of the strategic plan for the recreational boating safety
program.
    Sunday, January 16, 2011:
    (6) Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Planning Subcommittee
meeting (Cont.).
    (7) Receipt and discussion of the following reports:
    (a) Prevention through People Subcommittee report.
    (b) Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee report.
    (c) Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Planning Subcommittee
report.
    (8) Closing remarks.
    A more detailed agenda can be found at: http://homeport.uscg.mil/NBSAC, after January 5, 2011.

Procedural

    These meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meeting
may conclude early if all business is finished. Members of the public
may make oral presentations during the meetings concerning the matters
being discussed. Public comments will be limited to three minutes per
speaker. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the
meetings, please notify Mr. Jeff Ludwig as described in the ADDRESSES
section above by December 30, 2010. If you would like a copy of your
material distributed to each member of the Council in advance of the
meetings, please submit thirty (30) copies to Mr. Jeff Ludwig as
described in the ADDRESSES section above by December 30, 2010.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Mr. Jeff Ludwig as described in the ADDRESSES section above as soon as
possible.

    Dated: December 16, 2010.
K.S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-32058 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42396-42399]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18936]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81511; File No. SR-FICC-2017-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Adopt the Interpretive Guidance With Respect to Watch List
Consequences

August 31, 2017.
    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 23, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been primarily prepared by the clearing agency. FICC filed
the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend FICC's Government Securities
Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') and Mortgage-Backed
Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD Rules,'' and
collectively with the GSD Rules, the ``Rules'') \5\ in order to adopt
the Interpretive Guidance with Respect to Watch List Consequences
(``Interpretive Guidance''), which would provide guidance to members of
GSD and MBSD regarding placement on the Watch List and its impact on
their respective Clearing Fund deposits as well as other consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the GSD
Rules, available at www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
rules/ficc_gov_rules.pdf, and the MBSD Rules, available at
www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
ficc_mbsd_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change would add the Interpretive Guidance into
the Rules, which will provide guidance to members of GSD and MBSD
regarding the Watch List and its impact on their respective Clearing
Fund deposits as well as other possible consequences.
(i) Background
    FICC occupies an important role in the securities settlement system
by interposing itself through each of GSD and MBSD as a central
counterparty

between members that are counterparties to transactions accepted for
clearing by FICC, thereby reducing the risks faced by its members.
FICC's ability to guarantee settlement of these transactions is
dependent upon its risk management, which is the means by which it
protects itself and its members from the risks inherent in the
settlement process. The Watch List is one of the risk management tools
that FICC uses to monitor default risks of its members on an ongoing
basis.\6\ A member could be placed on the Watch List if its credit
rating derived from the Credit Risk Rating Matrix is 5, 6 or 7,\7\ or
if, based on FICC's consideration of relevant factors, it is deemed by
FICC to pose a heightened risk to FICC and its members.\8\ Being placed
on the Watch List may result in Clearing Fund-related consequences as
well as other consequences under the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 80734 (May 19, 2017), 82 FR
24177 (May 25, 2017) (SR-FICC-2017-006), 80731 (May 19, 2017), 82 FR
24174 (May 25, 2017) (SR-FICC-2017-804).
    \7\ The Credit Risk Rating Matrix generates credit ratings for
relevant members based on a 7-point rating system, with ``1'' being
the strongest credit rating and ``7'' being the weakest credit
rating.
    \8\ Pursuant to GSD Rule 1, the term ``Watch List'' means ``at
any time and from time to time, the list of Members whose credit
ratings derived from the Credit Risk Rating Matrix are 5, 6 or 7, as
well as members that, based on the Corporation's consideration of
relevant factors, including those set forth in Section 12(d) of Rule
3, are deemed by the Corporation to pose heightened risk to the
Corporation and its Members.'' GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
    Pursuant to MBSD Rule 1, the term ``Watch List'' means ``at any
time and from time to time, the list of Members whose credit ratings
derived from the Credit Risk Rating Matrix are 5, 6 or 7, as well as
Members that, based on the Corporation's consideration of relevant
factors, including those set forth in Section 11(d) of Rule 3, are
deemed by the Corporation to pose heightened risk to the Corporation
and its Members.'' MBSD Rule 1, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Detailed Description of the Proposed Rule Change
    In order to provide members of GSD and MBSD guidance regarding
placement on the Watch List and its impact on their respective Clearing
Fund deposits and other consequences, FICC is proposing to adopt the
Interpretive Guidance, as described below.
    FICC is also proposing to amend the ``Watch List'' definition in
GSD Rule 1 (Definitions) and MBSD Rule 1 (Definitions), respectively,
to add a footnote referring to the Interpretive Guidance for members'
ease of reference when reviewing the Rules for Watch List implications.
The proposed footnote would indicate to members that being placed on
the Watch List may result in Clearing Fund-related consequences as well
as other consequences under the Rules and would refer them to the
Interpretive Guidance in the Rules.
A. Clearing Fund-Related Consequences for Members Placed on the Watch
List
    As proposed, the Interpretive Guidance would provide details on
Clearing Fund-related consequences for members of GSD and MBSD placed
on the Watch List, including additional Clearing Fund deposits,
restriction on withdrawal of Excess Clearing Fund Deposits, and non-
waiver of minimal Clearing Fund payment.
1. Additional Clearing Fund Deposits
    Pursuant to Section 12(e) of GSD Rule 3 \9\ and Section 11(e) of
MBSD Rule 3,\10\ FICC may require a GSD Netting Member or an MBSD
Clearing Member, as applicable, that has been placed on the Watch List
to make and maintain a deposit to the GSD Clearing Fund or MBSD
Clearing Fund, as applicable, over and above the amount determined in
accordance with Section 2 of GSD Rule 4 and Section 2 of MBSD Rule 4,
as applicable, or such higher amount as the FICC Board may deem
necessary for the protection of FICC or other members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 12(e) of GSD Rule 3, in relevant parts, states that
``The Corporation may require a Netting Member that has been placed
on the Watch List to make and maintain a deposit to the Clearing
Fund over and above the amount determined in accordance with Section
2 of Rule 4 (which additional deposit shall constitute a portion of
the Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit), or such higher amount
as the Board may deem necessary for the protection of the
Corporation or other Members, which higher amount may include, but
is not limited to, additional payments or deposits in any form to
offset potential risk to the Corporation and its Members arising
from activity submitted by such Member.'' GSD Rule 3, Ongoing
Membership Requirements.
    \10\ Section 11(e) of MBSD Rule 3, in relevant parts, states
that ``The Corporation may require a Clearing Member that has been
placed on the Watch List to make and maintain a deposit to the
Clearing Fund over and above the amount determined in accordance
with Section 2 of Rule 4 (which additional deposit shall constitute
a portion of the Clearing Member's Required Fund Deposit), or such
higher amount as the Board may deem necessary for the protection of
the Corporation or other Members, which higher amount may include,
but is not limited to, additional payments or deposits in any form
to offset potential risk to the Corporation and its Members arising
from activity submitted by such Member.'' MBSD Rule 3, Ongoing
Membership Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The determination of whether a member that is on the Watch List
should be subject to an additional Clearing Fund deposit is based on
factors determined to be relevant by FICC from time to time, including:
    a. The overall financial condition and financial stability or
volatility of the GSD Netting Member or the MBSD Clearing Member, as
applicable, which may include a review of the member's credit rating/
enhanced surveillance \11\ history and outlook. For example, FICC may
require an additional Clearing Fund deposit from a member that is both
rated a 7 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix as well as under enhanced
surveillance, or if the member's credit rating has deteriorated rapidly
month over month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FICC maintains an enhanced surveillance list for membership
monitoring. The enhanced surveillance list is generally used when
members are undergoing drastic and unexpected changes in their
financial conditions or operational capabilities and thus are deemed
by FICC to be of the highest risk level and/or warrant additional
scrutiny due to FICC's ongoing concerns about these members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. The liquidity arrangement, if any, of the GSD Netting Member or
the MBSD Clearing Member, as applicable. For example, FICC may require
an additional Clearing Fund deposit from a member if FICC has concerns
about the member's liquidity arrangement or if FICC determines that the
member has insufficient liquidity resources when compared to the volume
of the member's clearing activities at FICC.
    c. The Clearing Fund requirement history, transaction volume
trends, simulated closeout results, stress test results, backtest
results and outstanding positions of the GSD Netting Member or the MBSD
Clearing Member, as applicable. For example, FICC may require an
additional Clearing Fund deposit from a member that is on the Watch
List if a review of the member's activity level indicates that FICC or
its members could be exposed to losses from the member's activities.
    d. Adverse news reports and/or regulatory concerns relating to the
GSD Netting Member or the MBSD Clearing Member, as applicable.
    e. Any additional concerns relating to the financial or operational
condition of the GSD Netting Member or the MBSD Clearing Member, as
applicable.
    Additionally, pursuant to Section 2(a) of MBSD Rule 4,\12\ FICC may
impose an Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge on a MBSD Clearing Member that

experiences an adverse Intraday Mark-to-Market change that, among other
things, exceeds certain Surveillance Thresholds. The Surveillance
Thresholds are set by FICC based on an MBSD Clearing Member's rating as
determined by the Credit Risk Rating Matrix and/or its Watch List
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Section 2(a) of MBSD Rule 4, in relevant parts, states ``on
any Business Day, a Clearing Member may become subject to an
Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge,'' and the term ``Intraday Mark-to-
Market Charge'' as defined in MBSD Rule 1, in relevant parts,
provides that ``the Corporation may, in its discretion, collect the
Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge from a Clearing Member that
experiences an adverse Intraday Mark-to-Market change that . . .
exceeds a certain dollar threshold (``Surveillance Threshold'')''
and that ``the Surveillance Threshold is an amount between
$1,000,000 and $50,000,000 that is set by the Corporation per
Clearing Member based on a Clearing Member's rating as determined by
the Credit Risk Rating Matrix and/or a Clearing Member's Watch List
status.'' MBSD Rule 4, Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, pursuant to Section 2(g) of MBSD Rule 4,\13\ FICC may
subject a MBSD Clearing Member to an intraday VaR Charge if the MBSD
Clearing Member is on the Watch List; however, FICC does not currently
collect a VaR Charge on an intraday basis from any MBSD Clearing
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Section 2(g) of MBSD Rule 4, in relevant parts, states
``any VaR Charge may be collected on an intra-day basis,'' that
``such intra-day VaR Charge amount shall be based upon certain
parameter breaks defined by the Corporation from time to time'' and
``qualitative factors including, but not limited to, Watch List
status and internal rating will also be considered in the
application of intraday VaR Charge.'' MBSD Rule 4, Clearing Fund and
Loss Allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Restriction on Withdrawal of Excess Clearing Fund Deposits
    Pursuant to Section 9 of GSD Rule 4 \14\ and Section 9 of MBSD Rule
4,\15\ FICC may retain some or all of the Excess Clearing Fund Deposit
of a GSD Member or an MBSD Member, as applicable, who is on the Watch
List.\16\ Nonetheless, FICC generally does not retain the Excess
Clearing Fund Deposit of a Watch List member unless the member fails to
pay the Required Fund Deposit within the required timeframes
established by FICC, or if FICC has a concern that the member will not
be able to satisfy its obligation to FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 9 of GSD Rule 4, in relevant parts, states ``at the
discretion of the Corporation, some or all of the Excess Clearing
Fund Deposit may not be returned . . . if the Member is on the Watch
List.'' GSD Rule 4, Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation.
    \15\ Section 9 of MBSD Rule 4, in relevant parts, states ``at
the discretion of the Corporation, some or all of the Excess
Clearing Fund Deposit may not be returned . . . if the Member is on
the Watch List.'' MBSD Rule 4, Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation.
    \16\ Pursuant to Section 9 of GSD Rule 4, FICC may also retain
some or all of the Excess Clearing Fund Deposits of a GSD Member if
FICC determines that the GSD Member's anticipated Funds-Only
Settlement Amounts or Net Settlement Positions in the near future
may reasonably be expected to be materially different than those of
the recent past. GSD Rules, supra note 5.
    Pursuant to Section 9 of MBSD Rule 4, FICC may also retain some
or all of the Excess Clearing Fund Deposits of a MBSD Member if the
MBSD Member has an outstanding payment obligation to FICC, if FICC
determines that the MBSD Member's anticipated Cash Settlement
Obligations, Pool Net Obligations or Transactions over the next 90
calendar days may reasonably be expected to be materially different
than during the prior 90 calendar days. MBSD Rules, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Non-Waiver of Minimal Clearing Fund Payment
    Pursuant to Section 2(a) of GSD Rule 4 \17\ and Section 2(c) of
MBSD Rule 4,\18\ a GSD Member or an MBSD Member, as applicable, is not
required to make any payment to its Clearing Fund on a given day if the
difference between the amount of the GSD Member's or the MBSD Member's,
as applicable, Required Fund Deposit as reported on that day and the
amount then on deposit towards satisfaction thereof is less than both
(i) $250,000 and (ii) 25 percent of the amount then on deposit,
provided that the GSD Member or the MBSD Member, as applicable, is not
on the Watch List. As such, GSD Members and MBSD Members that are on
the Watch List must satisfy all margin calls for their respective
Clearing Funds regardless of the amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Section 2(a) of GSD Rule 4, in relevant parts, states that
``A Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit shall be reported daily,
and payment shall be due by the time specified in the Corporation's
procedures; however, such payment shall not be due on a given day
if: (a) The difference between the amount of a Member's Required
Fund Deposit as reported on that day, and the amount then on deposit
towards satisfaction thereof is less than both (i) $250,000, and
(ii) 25 percent of the amount then on deposit; and (b) the Member is
not on the Watch List. GSD Rule 4, Clearing Fund and Loss
Allocation.
    \18\ Section 2(c) of MBSD Rule 4, in relevant parts, states that
``A Clearing Member's Required Fund Deposit shall be reported daily,
and payment shall be due by the time specified in the Corporation's
procedures; however, such payment shall not be due on a given day
if: (a) The difference between the amount of a Member's Required
Fund Deposit as reported on that day and the amount then on deposit
towards satisfaction thereof is less than both (i) $250,000, and
(ii) 25 percent of the amount then on deposit from the Clearing
Member; and (b) the Member is not on the Watch List.'' MBSD Rule 4,
Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Other Consequences for GSD Netting Members Placed on the Watch List
    As proposed, the Interpretive Guidance would also describe other
consequences that may affect GSD Netting Members placed on the Watch
List.
    Pursuant to Section 12(e) of GSD Rule 3,\19\ if a GSD Netting
Member is on the Watch List, FICC may (1) suspend the GSD Netting
Member's right under the GSD Rules to collect a Credit Forward Mark
Adjustment Payment during all or a portion of the time period that the
GSD Netting Member is on the Watch List and/or (2) maintain possession
of the securities and/or cash that comprise the GSD Netting Member's
Collateral Allocation Entitlement as the result of its GCF Repo
Transaction activity. Nonetheless, FICC generally does not retain these
credits and/or entitlements unless the GSD Netting Member fails to pay
the Required Fund Deposit within the required timeframes established by
FICC, or if FICC has a concern that the GSD Netting Member will not be
able to satisfy its obligation to FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Section 12(e) of GSD Rule 3, in relevant parts, states that
``as regards a Netting Member that has been placed on the Watch List
by the Corporation, the Corporation may suspend, during all or a
portion of the time period that such Member is on the Watch List,
its right under these Rules to collect a Credit Forward Mark
Adjustment Payment. Moreover, if a Netting Member on the Watch List
has a Collateral Allocation Entitlement as the result of its GCF
Repo Transaction activity, the Corporation may, in its sole
discretion, maintain possession of the securities and/or cash that
comprise such Collateral Allocation Entitlement.'' GSD Rule 3,
Ongoing Membership Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.\20\ The proposed rule change would provide additional
transparency to FICC members regarding placement on the Watch List and
its impact on their respective Clearing Fund deposits as well as other
consequences. The proposed rule change would also clarify FICC's
current practices regarding the assessment, collection and withholding
of related margin charges, credits and/or entitlements. Accordingly,
the proposed rule change would ensure that the Rules are transparent
and clear, which would enable all stakeholders to readily understand
their respective rights and obligations in connection with FICC's
clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Therefore, FICC
believes that the proposed rule change would promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that FICC
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide for publicly disclosing all
relevant rules and material procedures.\21\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii)
under the Act requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide
sufficient information to enable participants to identify and evaluate
the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by participating
in FICC.\22\ The proposed rule change enhances the transparency in the
Rules by describing the impact that placement on the Watch List could
have on members' respective Clearing Fund deposits and other

consequences. By doing so, the proposed rule change would provide for
the public disclosure of the rules and procedures through which FICC
assesses, collects and withholds certain margin charges, credits and/or
entitlements from members on the Watch List. By providing information
regarding the assessment, collection and withholding of certain margin
charges and other consequences of the Watch List, the proposed rule
change would also enable FICC's members to identify and evaluate the
risks and material costs they incur by participating in FICC. As such,
FICC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(23)(i) and (ii) under the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i), (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impact
competition.\24\ The proposed rule change provides interpretive
guidance with respect to existing Rules and would increase the
transparency of the Rules regarding the Watch List and its impact on
FICC members' respective Clearing Fund deposits and other consequences
by clarifying FICC's current practices with respect to the assessment,
collection and withholding of certain margin charges, credits and/or
entitlements from members on the Watch List. The proposed rule change
would not change such current practices. As such, FICC believes that
the proposed rule change will not impact FICC members or have any
impact on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not
been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by FICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\26\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-FICC-2017-019 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2017-019. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 FICC and on
DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-FICC-2017-019 and should be
submitted on or before September 28, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18936 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43209-43214]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19453]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0459, FRL-9967-76-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York;
Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of New York for purposes of implementing Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This proposed approval is conditioned on
New York's timely submittal of a supplement to the SIP that includes a
revised regulatory RACT requirement related to control of volatile
organic compounds from Industrial Cleaning Solvents. The EPA is
proposing to approve New York's RACT SIP as it applies to non-control
technique guideline major sources and major sources of oxides of
nitrogen. The EPA is also proposing to approve the State of New York's
non-attainment new source review certification as sufficient for
purposes of satisfying the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This action is
being taken in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2017-0459 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Environmental
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at
(212) 637-3892, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Supplementary Information section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?
III. What did New York submit?
IV. What is the EPA's evaluation of New York's SIP submittal?
V. How could New York get full approval for this SIP revision?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New York on
December 22, 2014 for purposes of implementing Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) \1\ for the 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). The State's December
2014 SIP revision consists of a demonstration that New York meets the
RACT requirements for the two precursors for ground-level ozone, i.e.,
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), set forth by the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) with respect to the
2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17,
1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in New York's December 2014 SIP submittal, the State
indicates that the RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have been
fulfilled with the exception of sources subject to the industrial
cleaning solvents control techniques guidelines (CTG). In the State's
submittal, New York committed to address sources subject to this CTG
through a timely revision to Part 226 entitled, ``Solvent Metal
Cleaning Processes'' of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations (6 NYCRR Part 226). Therefore, consistent with Section
110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is conditioning its approval of
New York's December 2014 SIP submittal on New York's commitment to
submit, by a date certain but not later than one year after the date of
the EPA's conditional approval of New York's December 2014 SIP
submittal, a revised Part 226 addressing VOC emissions from industrial
cleaning solvents. The State's commitment must be submitted to EPA, as
a supplement to the SIP, and include a date certain by which the State
will submit Part 226, and the date certain must be no later than one
year from the effective date of the EPA's final rule making action on
New York's December 2014 SIP submittal. New York must commit in writing
to correct the deficiency discussed above.
    The EPA is proposing to approve New York's RACT SIP as it applies
to non-CTG major sources of VOCs and to major sources of
NOX. The EPA is also proposing to approve New York's
certification that nonattainment new source review (NNSR) applies
statewide for NOX and VOC emissions from stationary sources.
    It should be noted that a court ordered consent decree \2\ requires
that the EPA shall sign a notice of final rulemaking on New York's
December 2014 RACT SIP no later than November 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Center for Biological Diversity v. Gina McCarthy, Case No.
4:16-cv-04092-PJH (N.D.Ca.), Revised Consent Decree dated 1/19/17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?

    In 2008, EPA revised the health based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame.
The EPA determined that the revised 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease such as asthma.
    On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30087), the EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. This action became effective on July
20, 2012. The two 8-hour ozone marginal nonattainment areas located in
New York State are the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-
CT) nonattainment area and the Jamestown

nonattainment area. The remainder of New York State was designated as
unclassifiable/attainment. The New York portion of the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area, also referred to as the New York Metropolitan Area
(NYMA), is composed of the five boroughs of New York City and the
surrounding counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and the
Shinnecock Indian Nation.\3\ The Jamestown nonattainment area is
composed of Chautauqua County. On May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), the EPA
determined that Jamestown attained the 2008 ozone standard by the July
20, 2015 attainment date and that the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area did
not attain the 2008 ozone standard by the applicable attainment date
and is reclassified from a marginal to a moderate nonattainment area.
State attainment plans for moderate nonattainment areas were due by
January 1, 2017. Jamestown is still classified as a marginal
nonattainment area until the State submits a redesignation request \4\
to the EPA. Since the NYMA has been reclassified to a moderate
nonattainment area, New York plans to submit a new RACT determination
as part of the State's attainment demonstration for the 2008 ozone
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Information pertaining to areas of Indian country is
intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA
determination of Indian country status or any Indian country
boundary. The EPA lacks the authority to establish Indian country
land status, and makes no determination of Indian country boundaries
at 77 FR 30087 (May 21, 2012).
    \4\ EPA's determination of attainment does not constitute a
redesignation to attainment. Redesignation requires states to meet a
number of additional statutory criteria, including the EPA approval
of a state plan demonstrating maintenance of the air quality
standard for 10 years after redesignation. (81 FR 26697 at 26701;
May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The counties in the NYMA (and part of Orange County) were
previously classified under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS as severe,
requiring RACT, while the remaining counties in the State were subject
to RACT as part of the moderate classification or as part of the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR). In the NYMA and other portions of Orange
County, the previous severe classification resulted in a requirement
for major sources to be defined as those having emissions of 25 tons
per year or more for either VOC or NOX.
    In areas classified as moderate or areas located in the OTR (which
includes all of New York State) under the 8-hour ozone standard, the
definition for major sources in New York would have been 50 tons per
year for VOC and 100 tons per year for NOX. New York chose
to retain the 1-hour ozone plan emission threshold of 25 tons per year
in the NYMA and a portion of Orange County for purposes of the RACT
analysis which results in a more stringent evaluation of RACT. The rest
of the state follows major source definitions as previously mentioned.
    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the CAA require states to
implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher)
nonattainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires
RACT in states located in the OTR. Specifically, these areas are
required to implement RACT for all major VOC and NOX
emission sources and for all sources covered by a Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by the EPA which
establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC source
category. A related set of documents, Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT) documents, exists primarily for NOX control
requirements. States must submit rules, or negative declarations when
the State has no such sources, for CTG source categories, but not for
sources in ACT categories. However, RACT must be imposed on major
sources of NOX, and some of those major sources may be
within a sector covered by an ACT document.
    On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), the EPA published a final rule that
outlined the obligations that areas found to be in nonattainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS need to address. This rule, herein referred to as the
``2008 ozone implementation rule,'' contained, among other things, a
description of the EPA's expectations for states with RACT obligations.
The 2008 ozone implementation rule indicated that states could meet
RACT through the establishment of new or more stringent requirements
that meet RACT control levels, through a certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by the EPA under a prior
ozone NAAQS represents adequate RACT control levels for attainment of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or a combination of these two approaches. In
addition, a state must submit a negative declaration in instances where
there are no CTG sources. The 2008 ozone implementation rule requires
that states with nonattainment areas were required to submit RACT SIPs
to EPA within two years from the effective date of nonattainment
designation or by July 20, 2014.

III. What did New York submit?

    On December 22, 2014, the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC or New York) submitted to the EPA a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of information
documenting how New York complied with the RACT requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In its December 2014 RACT submittal, New York
certifies that the State's submittal addresses the RACT requirements
for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, with the exception of the CTG for
industrial cleaning solvents. In New York's December 2014 RACT
submittal, the State commits to revise 6 NYCRR Part 226, ``Solvent
Metal Cleaning Processes,'' to fulfill that requirement in a timely
manner.
    In New York's December 2014 RACT submittal, the State evaluated its
existing RACT regulations which were adopted to meet the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard to ascertain whether the same regulations constitute
RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. In making its new 8-hour ozone
RACT determination, New York relied on EPA's RACT Question and Answer
document (May 18, 2006) and the most recent emission control technology
and cost evaluations to determine what constitutes technically and
economically feasible controls for specific sources. Accordingly, the
basic framework for New York's December 2014 RACT SIP determination is
described as follows:
     Identify all source categories covered by CTG and ACT
documents.
     Identify applicable regulations that implement RACT.
     Certify that the existing level of controls for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard equals RACT under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard
in certain cases.
     Declare which sources covered by a CTG and ACT do not
exist within the state and/or that RACT is not applicable in certain
cases.
     Identify and evaluate applicability of RACT to individual
sources whose source category does not have a presumptive emission
limit covered by a state-wide regulation.
     Identify potential RACT revisions.
     Identify statewide applicability of nonattainment new
source review (NNSR).
    New York certified that, with the exception of Part 226, ``Solvent
Metal Cleaning Processes,'' which addresses VOC emissions from solvent
metal cleaning processes, all RACT regulations with SIP approved State
effective dates through the date when the RACT analysis was performed
in 2014 are RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the RACT
determinations issued by the State are consistent with the most recent
control technology and economic

considerations. The following discusses the results of New York's
analysis of RACT for the basic framework identified above.

CTGs and ACTs

    New York reviewed its existing RACT regulations adopted under the
1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standard to identify source
categories covered by the EPA's CTG and ACT documents. New York's RACT
SIP submittal lists the CTG and ACT documents and corresponding State
RACT regulations that cover the CTG and ACT sources included in New
York's emissions inventory. For non-CTG major sources, 6 NYCRR Part
212, ``General Process Emission Sources,'' regulates RACT compliance
for VOC and NOX. Major sources of NOX are
regulated by 6 NYCRR Part 227-2, ``Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX).'' In its December 2014 SIP submittal, New York
certifies that major non-CTG sources are covered by the Part 212 RACT
regulation.
    With the exception of VOC emissions from industrial cleaning
solvents, New York has implemented RACT controls state-wide for all
CTGs that the EPA has issued as of December 2014. The following table
lists the RACT controls that have been promulgated in 6 NYCRR and the
corresponding EPA SIP approval dates.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               NY regulation                            Title                        EPA approval date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 205..................................  Architectural and Industrial  12/13/04, 69 FR 72118
                                             Maintenance Coatings.
Part 211..................................  General Prohibitions........  7/12/13, 78 FR 41846
Part 212..................................  General Process Emission      7/12/13, 78 FR 41486
                                             Sources.
Part 214..................................  Byproduct Coke Oven           7/20/06, 71 FR 41163
                                             Batteries.
Part 216..................................  Iron and/or Steel Processes.  7/20/06, 71 FR 41163
Part 220..................................  Portland Cement and Glass     7/12/13, 78 FR 41486
                                             Plants.
Part 223..................................  Petroleum Refineries........  7/19/85, 50 FR 29382
Part 224..................................  Sulfuric and Nitric Acid      7/19/85, 50 FR 29382
                                             Plants.
Part 226..................................  Solvent Metal Cleaning        1/23/04, 69 FR 3237
                                             Processes.
Part 227-2................................  RACT for Oxides of Nitrogen   7/12/13, 78 FR 41486
                                             (NOX).
Part 228..................................  Surface Coating Processes...  3/04/14, 79 FR 12084
Part 229..................................  Petroleum and Volatile        12/23/97, 62 FR 67006
                                             Organic Liquid Storage and
                                             Transfer.
Part 230..................................  Gasoline Dispensing Sites     4/30/98, 63 FR 23668
                                             and Transport Vehicles.
Part 232..................................  Dry Cleaning................  6/17/85, 50 FR 25079
Part 233..................................  Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic   12/23/97, 62 FR 67006
                                             Processes.
Part 234..................................  Graphic Arts................  3/08/12, 77 FR 13974
Part 236..................................  Synthetic Organic Chemical    7/27/93, 58 FR 40059
                                             Manufacturing Facility
                                             Component Leaks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New York's December 2014 RACT submittal contains a table (see
Appendix A: Control Technique Guidelines and Alternative Control
Techniques Documents) listing all the CTG categories and the
corresponding State regulations or negative declarations that address
the requirements. The EPA had previously approved and incorporated into
the SIP all of the State's regulations identified in Appendix A that
address CTGs.
    For many source categories, the existing New York rules have more
stringent emission limits and/or lower thresholds of applicability than
the recommendations contained in the CTG and ACT documents. In its
submittal, New York identified some categories where controls may be
more stringent than the recommended levels contained in the CTG and ACT
documents and these are identified below in the section entitled
``Additional Control Measures Needed for Attainment.'' New York
considers and certifies that its SIP approved regulations meet the RACT
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

Source Categories Not Applicable in New York State

    New York previously certified to the satisfaction of the EPA (40
CFR 52.1683(a)) that no sources are located in the nonattainment area
of the State which are covered by the following CTGs: (1) Natural Gas/
Gasoline Processing Plants; (2) Air Oxidation Processes at Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industries; and (3) Manufacture of High-
Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. In
addition, New York previously certified to the satisfaction of the EPA
(40 CFR 52.1683(b)) that no sources are located in the State which are
covered by the CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. New
York has reviewed its emission inventory and emission statements as
required under 6 NYCRR 202-2, ``Emission Statement,'' for stationary
sources and affirms that there are no sources within New York State for
the following CTGs: (1) Manufacture of Vegetable Oils,\5\ and (2)
Application of Agricultural Pesticides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The CTG for the manufacturing of vegetable oils was
published in June 1978 (see EPA-450/2-78-035) but in a March 1980
guidance document, entitled ``Guidance for the Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds Emitted by Ten Selected Source Categories,'' the
EPA advised that the ``states are not required, at this time, to
develop regulations for the vegetable oil manufacturing industry.''
The EPA guidance has not been revised since the March 1980 guidance.
At this time, the EPA considers the vegetable oil CTG as only
guidance for states when they need to develop attainment plans in
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In New York's September 2006 RACT submittal for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, the State indicated that there were no sources in the
State that are applicable to the CTG related to industrial cleaning
solvents; the State, however, has since determined that there are
sources in the State that are applicable to this CTG. In New York's
December 2014 RACT submittal, the State commits to revise and adopt in
a timely manner 6 NYCRR Part 226, ``Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes,''
to fulfill the requirements of the CTG for industrial cleaning
solvents. New York must commit to adopt and submit 6 NYCRR Part 226 to
EPA by a date certain but no later than one year from the effective
date of the EPA's final rule making action on New York's December 2014
SIP submittal.

Source-Specific RACT Determinations

    The 8-hour ozone RACT analysis must address source-specific RACT as
it applies to a single regulated entity. A source-specific RACT
determination applies to sources that have obtained a facility-specific
emission limit or an alternative emission limit, i.e., a variance. A
case-by-case RACT analysis is required for sources that are not defined
by a specific source category covered by an existing state regulation,
that are requesting a variance, or that are

not addressed by a CTG. New York's RACT guidance entitled, ``DAR-20
Economic and Technical Analysis for Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)'' outlines the process and conditions for granting
source-specific RACT determinations. Under the CAA, these individual
source-specific RACT determinations need to be submitted by the State
as a SIP revision for the EPA's approval. Therefore, New York included
in Appendix B of its December 2014 RACT SIP submittal a listing of VOC
and NOX source facilities that are subject to a RACT source-
specific SIP revision under the 8-hour ozone SIP and corresponding
emission limits, technology and the applicable regulation governing the
RACT determinations. Consistent with the CAA, in September 2008, August
2010, and December 2013, New York submitted to the EPA SIP revisions
that included most of the source-specific RACT revisions identified in
Appendix B of the RACT SIP submittals. The EPA is performing its
technical review of those submittals and will take separate rulemaking
actions for each of the source-specific determinations.
    In addition, in accordance with New York's NOX RACT
regulation, Part 227-2, owners of combined cycle combustion turbines
are required to perform case-by-case RACT determinations that may
result in more stringent emission limits. This RACT requirement was
approved into the SIP on July 12, 2013 (78 FR 41846).

Additional Control Measures Needed for Attainment

    In some instances, New York has adopted regulations with emission
limits that are more stringent than those recommended by the CTGs and
ACTs. For example, Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes, Commercial
and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers,'' Part 234, ``Graphic
Arts,'' Part 241, ``Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface
Coatings,'' and Part 227-2, ``Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) for Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)''
have each been adopted by the State with more stringent limits or
applicability than what was recommended by the corresponding CTGs or
ACTs.
    In New York's December 22, 2014 RACT SIP submittal, the State's
response to comments included an assessment that ``once the NYMA is
reclassified as `moderate' nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
an attainment SIP is required, DEC [New York] will undertake a review
of its many NOX control options to determine which would
most efficiently and effectively reduce emission in the NYMA.'' In this
regard, the EPA recommends that New York quantify potential reductions
for the following NOX control options. New York has the
opportunity to accomplish this when the State submits its RACT SIP for
the NYMA which was recently reclassified to moderate. On July 19, 2017,
New York, as part of its state rulemaking process, proposed its RACT
SIP for the reclassified moderate NYMA.

Municipal Waste Combustors

    During the public comment period on New York's 2008 ozone RACT
proposal a comment was submitted to the State proposing that Municipal
Waste Combustors (MWCs) in the NYMA should be controlled to at least
the RACT level. In New York's response, the State indicated that once
the NYMA is classified as moderate the State would undertake a review
of its many control options to determine which would most effectively
and efficiently reduce emissions in the NYMA. As stated previously, the
NYMA was reclassified as a moderate nonattainment area effective June
2016. In its response to comment, New York estimated that potential
NOX reductions of 1.50 and 1.75 tons per day could be
obtained from MWCs located in the NYMA. New York's neighboring states
of New Jersey and Connecticut have adopted RACT emission limits for
MWCs that are more stringent than New York's current permitted limits.
New York regulates MWCs under Part 219 (Incinerators) and Part 200
(General Provisions). While New York's regulations are consistent with
sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA for solid waste incinerators, New
York should consider more stringent limits for purposes of attaining
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CAA section 129 emission requirements are based
on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) that is at least
comparable or better than RACT requirements. The EPA considers this
beyond RACT for purposes of today's rulemaking. Therefore, New York
should consider more stringent RACT level NOX emission
limits for MWCs located in the NYMA to help attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.

Simple Cycle Combustion Turbines (Firing Distillate Oil or More Than
One Fuel)

    New York's NOX RACT regulation at Part 227-2 has set
NOX emission limits of 100 parts per million (ppmvd) \6\ for
simple cycle combustion turbines firing distillate oil or more than one
fuel. New York's neighboring state of Connecticut has adopted more
stringent NOX emission limits of 40-75 ppm for June 2018 and
40-50 ppm for June 2023 for this source category. New Jersey has also
adopted more stringent NOX emission limits of 42 ppm.\7\
Therefore, New York should consider more stringent RACT level
NOX emission limits for simple cycle turbines located
throughout the State for purposes of helping to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As measured on a dry volume basis and corrected to 15%
oxygen.
    \7\ 42 ppm is equivalent to 1.6 lb/megawatt-hour which is the
limit at Table 7 of New Jersey's NOX RACT regulation,
Subchapter 19. Subchapter 19 at Table 7 notes that the limit is
applicable to high electric demand day (HEDD) units or a stationary
combustion turbine that is capable of generating 15 MW or more and
that commenced operation on or after May 1, 2005. In accordance with
Subchapter 19 definitions, units that commence operation on or after
May 1, 2005 are neither HEDD nor non-HEDD units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYCRR Part 222 for Distributed Generation (DG)

    New York has adopted 6 NYCRR Part 222 for DG to address peaking
electric generation units which will help address emissions resulting
from high electric demand days (HEDD). Assuming Part 222 remains in
effect after current litigation concerning it is resolved, New York
should submit Part 222 as a SIP revision for EPA approval.
Alternatively, New York should consider other regulations for
addressing HEDD. In addition, as stated previously, the EPA also
recommends that New York review the simple cycle combustion turbine
limit of 100 ppmvd and consider adopting a more stringent limit similar
to that adopted by Connecticut.

Oil and Natural Gas CTG

    On October 27, 2016, the EPA announced in the Federal Register (81
FR 74798) the availability of the oil and natural gas CTG. This CTG
provides information for states to determine RACT for VOC emissions
from certain oil and natural gas industry sources. The EPA recommends
that New York review this CTG for possible statewide VOC reductions.
Effected states are required to submit a SIP revision by October 20,
2018.

Statewide Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)

    New York provides NNSR certification in the State's April 4, 2013
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. New York
provides additional affirmation in its December 2014 RACT submittal
that, since the State is located in the OTR, NNSR

applies statewide for emissions of VOC and NOX for new major
facilities or modifications to existing major or minor sources. New
major facilities or modification to existing major or minor facilities
in New York State are subject to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 231,
``New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities.'' NNSR requires
the application of Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) which is more
stringent than RACT. Furthermore, New York certifies in its December
2014 submittal that the State also relies upon federal rules such as
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
regulated under CAA section 112. NESHAPs establish MACT which may be
more stringent than RACT to control hazardous air pollutants.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve New York's certification
that nonattainment NNSR applies statewide for NOX and VOC
emissions from stationary sources.

IV. What is the EPA's evaluation of New York's SIP submittal?

    New York submitted a state-wide RACT assessment on December 22,
2014. The RACT submission from New York consists of: (1) A
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in New York's SIP
for various source categories that were approved by the EPA under the
1-hour and the 1997 8-hour ozone standards are based on the currently
available technically and economically feasible controls and that they
continue to represent RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for
implementation purposes; (2) a number of source-specific RACT
determinations submitted to the EPA for approval; (3) a negative
declaration that for certain CTGs and/or ACTs there are no sources
within New York State or that there are no sources within New York
above the applicability threshold; and (4) a commitment to revise and
adopt, and submit as a SIP revision a new or more stringent regulation
Part 226, that represent a RACT control level for sources subject to
the industrial cleaning solvents CTG.
    The EPA has reviewed New York's RACT analysis and has determined
that the state-wide RACT analysis submitted on December 22, 2014 does
not fully address the RACT requirement consistent with section
182(b)(2) of the CAA because New York has not adopted the RACT measure,
6 NYCRR Part 226, related to sources subject to the industrial cleaning
solvents CTG.
    Therefore, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve New York's
state-wide RACT SIP based on the State's commitment to submit Part 226
by a date certain but no later than one year from the effective date of
the EPA's final rule making action on New York's December 2014 SIP
submittal. The EPA encourages New York to accelerate its rulemaking
process and adopt the control measures for sources subject to the
industrial cleaning solvents CTG. The EPA is proposing to approve the
remainder of New York's December 22, 2014 SIP submittal as it applies
to non-CTG major sources of VOCs and to major sources of
NOX.
    Furthermore, the EPA encourages New York to strengthen its ozone
SIP by adopting, and submitting as SIP revisions, additional control
measures needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard by: (1)
Considering the adoption of more stringent emission limits for MWCs
located in the NYMA; (2) considering the adoption of more stringent
emission limits for simple cycle combustion turbines firing distillate
oil or more than one fuel; (3) adopting and submitting a regulation
that addresses the October 2016 oil and natural gas CTG; and (4)
submitting a SIP revision that addresses HEDD sources.

V. How could New York get full approval for this SIP revision?

    The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve New York's state-wide
RACT submittal dated December 22, 2014 for purposes of satisfying the
2008 8-hour ozone standard RACT requirement. New York must correct the
deficiency discussed in section IV by revising, adopting and submitting
to the EPA, a new or more stringent regulation, Part 226, that
represent a RACT control level for sources subject to the industrial
cleaning solvents CTG. New York must commit to adopt and submit Part
226 to EPA as a SIP revision by a date certain but not later than one
year from the EPA's final action on this SIP action.
    The EPA's conditional approval relates to New York's state-wide
RACT SIP revision as it applies to the relevant CAA CTG requirements
for VOC major sources. The EPA is proposing to approve the remainder of
New York's December 22, 2014 SIP submittal as it applies to non-CTG
major sources of VOCs and to major sources of NOX.
    The EPA is also proposing to approve New York's NNSR certification
as sufficient for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Under section 110(k) of the CAA, the EPA may conditionally approve
a plan revision based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year
after the date of approval of the plan revision. If the EPA
conditionally approves the commitment in a final rulemaking action, the
State must meet its commitment to submit Part 226 that addresses the
industrial cleaning solvents CTG. If New York fails to meet its
commitment within the specified time period for any portion of the
deficient SIP requirement discussed in section IV above, the
conditional approval will, by operation of law, become a disapproval.
The EPA will notify the State by letter that this action has occurred.
At that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved
SIP for New York and an 18 -month clock for sanctions under CAA section
179(a)(2) and a two-year clock for a federal implementation plan (FIP)
under CAA section 110(c)(1) would commence. The EPA subsequently will
publish a document in the Federal Register notifying the public that
the conditional approval converted to a disapproval. If New York meets
its commitment within the applicable time frame, the conditionally
approved submission will remain as part of the SIP until the EPA takes
final action approving or disapproving the SIP requirement in question.
    If the EPA disapproves a State's new submittal, the conditionally
approved RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone standard will also be disapproved
at that time. If the EPA approves the submittal, the State's RACT SIP
for the 2008 ozone standard will be fully approved in its entirety and
replace the conditionally approved RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone RACT
standard in the SIP.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this proposal. These comments will be considered before the EPA takes
final action. Interested parties may participate in the federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments as discussed in the
ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to New
York's 2008 8-hour ozone RACT submission 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, Nitrogen dioxide, intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Catherine R. McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2017-19453 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42806]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2126-003.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Idaho Power
Company.
    Filed Date: 9/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170906-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-262-001.
    Applicants: Uniper Global Commodities North America LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change In Status of Uniper Global
Commodities North America LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170906-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1456-010.
    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Amended Compliance Filing
Cancelling Reactive Tariff to be effective 12/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20170905-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2091-001.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2016 MBR Updated Market Power
Analysis Compliance Filing ER16-2091 and EL16-114 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170906-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2146-001.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Pending Tariff Filing--
NITSA with Project Spokane, LLC to be effective 7/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20170905-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2440-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 4775,
Queue No. AB1-125 & Cancellation of SA No. 4617 to be effective 8/7/
2017.
    Filed Date: 9/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170906-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF16-259-001; EL16-43-000.
    Applicants: Bright Light Capital, LLC.
    Description: Refund Report of Bright Light Capital, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170906-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19245 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P