[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 69059]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24112]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9953-29]

Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted
pursuant to an Enforceable Consent Agreement (ECA) issued by EPA under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this
document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which
information has been received; the uses or intended uses of such
chemical substance and/or mixture and the information required by the
applicable protocols and methodologies for the development of
information; and describes the nature of the information received. Each
chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is
identified in Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Kathy Calvo, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information about the following chemical substance and/or mixture
is provided in Unit IV.: Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-
67-2).

II. Federal Register Publication Requirement

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of information
submitted pursuant to ECAs promulgated under TSCA section 4(a) (15
U.S.C. 2603).

III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register
document that announces the receipt of information. Upon EPA's
completion of its quality assurance review, the information received
will be added to the docket for the ECA that required the information.
Use the docket ID number provided in Unit IV. to access the information
in the docket for the related ECA.
    The docket for this Federal Register document and the docket for
each related ECA is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

IV. Information Received

    This unit contains the information required by TSCA section 4(d)
for the information received by EPA.

Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-67-2)

    1. Chemical Use(s): D4 is used as an intermediate for silicone
copolymers and other chemicals. D4 is also used in industrial
processing applications as a solvent (which becomes part of a product
formulation or mixture), finishing agent, and an adhesive and sealant
chemical. It is also used for both consumer and commercial purposes in
paints and coatings, and plastic and rubber products and has consumer
uses in polishes, sanitation, soaps, detergents, adhesives, and
sealants.
    2. Applicable ECA: Final Enforceable Consent Agreement for
Environmental Testing for Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-
67-2).
    3. Information Received: The following listing describes the nature
of the test data received. The test data will be added to the docket
for the applicable ECA and can be found by referencing the docket ID
number provided. EPA reviews of information will be added to the same
docket upon completion.
    a. Field Sampling of Benthic Organisms: Carrolton, KY; Gresham, OR;
Iowa City, IA; and Steamboat Springs, CO. The docket ID number assigned
to this data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-2009.
    b. Interim Progress Report. The docket ID number assigned to this
data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-2009.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: September 29, 2016.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2016-24112 Filed 10-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18582-18583]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06845]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4478-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Mississippi; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4478-DR), dated March 12,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 12, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 12, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Mississippi resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-
line winds, and flooding during the period of January 10 to January
11, 2020, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Mississippi.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Terry L. Quarles, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Mississippi have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Bolivar, Choctaw, Clay, DeSoto, Oktibbeha, Panola, Prentiss,
Sunflower, Tishomingo, and Washington Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Mississippi are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,

Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals
and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-06845 Filed 4-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2065-2066]
[DOCID:fr14ja09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-36-000 PF08-13-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application

January 7, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 15, 2008, Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern), P.O. Box 2563, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-2563, filed in the
above referenced docket an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
authorizing the construction, installation, and operation of certain
pipeline, compression, measurement, interconnection, and appurtenant
facilities in the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia, and the
abandonment and replacement of certain other sections of its pipeline
system in the state of Georgia (SSEIII Project), all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Southern proposes to: (a) Construct 65.35 miles of
pipeline loop, (b) replace 22.6 miles of pipeline with larger diameter
pipeline; and (c) install 17,310 horsepower of compression at existing
compressor stations in order to provide an additional 375,000 Dth/day
of firm transportation for Southern Company Services to provide fuel
for Georgia Power Company's Plant McDonough electric generation
facility in Cobb County, Georgia. Southern estimates that the proposed
facilities will cost approximately $352 million and proposes to recover
the costs through a new levelized incremental rate under its FERC Gas
Tariff Rate Schedule FT. Southern proposes to construct the SSEIII
Project in three phases. Phase I will consist of one new meter station,
looping of one pipeline segment, and abandonment and replacement of one
pipeline segment, with the meter station to be completed and in service
on May 1, 2010, and the pipeline segments to be completed and in
service on January 1, 2011. Phase II will consist of modifications at
one of Southern's existing compressor stations and looping of two
pipeline segments, all to be completed and in service on June 1, 2011.
Finally, Phase III will consist of modifications at one of Southern's
existing compressor stations, looping of two pipeline segments, and
abandonment and replacement of one pipeline segment, all to be
completed and in service on June 1, 2012.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to John
C. Griffin, Senior Counsel, Southern Natural Gas Company, P.O. Box
2563, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-2563 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On March 14, 2008, the Commission staff granted Southern's request
to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF08-13-000
to staff activities involved in the SSEIII Project. Now as of the
filing of the December 15, 2008 application, the Pre-Filing Process for
this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP09-36-000, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: January 28, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-540 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29954-29955]
[DOCID:fr24my06-87]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8174-3; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0134]

A Framework for Assessing Health Risks of Environmental Exposures
to Children

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Peer-Review Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc., an EPA
contractor for external scientific peer review, plans to convene an
independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer
review workshop to review the external review draft document titled,
``A Framework for Assessing Health Risks of Environmental Exposures to
Children'' (EPA/600/R-05/093A). The draft document was prepared by the
National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office
of Research and Development. This document is available on the Internet
at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay/cfm?deid=150263.

    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination. Eastern Research Group, Inc. invites the
public to register to attend this workshop as observers. In addition,
Eastern Research Group, Inc. invites the public to give oral and/or
provide written comments at the workshop regarding the draft document
under review. The draft document and EPA's peer review charge are
available primarily via the Internet on NCEA's home page under the
Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
 On March 14, 2006, EPA announced a 45-day public

comment period on the draft document (71 FR 13125). The public comment
period and the external peer review workshop are separate processes
that provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the
document. EPA has provided Eastern Research Group, Inc. with the public
comments EPA received. In preparing a final report, EPA will consider
public comments it received during the public comment period and will
consider the Eastern Research Group, Inc. report of the comments and
recommendations

from the external peer-review workshop.

DATES: The peer-review panel workshop will begin on June 6, 2006, at
8:30 a.m. and end at Noon on June 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The peer-review workshop will be held at Hyatt Regency on
Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW. The EPA contractor, Eastern
Research Group, Inc., is organizing, convening, and conducting the peer
review workshop. To attend the workshop, register by May 31, 2006, by
calling Eastern Research Group, Inc. at<PHONE_NUMBER>, sending a
facsimile to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
You may also register via the Internet at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/ncea/childhra.htm.
 Members of the public may

attend the workshop as observers, and there will be a limited time for
comments from the public in the afternoon. Please let Eastern Research
Group, Inc. know if you wish to make comments during the workshop.
Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come,
first-served basis.
    The draft ``A Framework for Assessing Health Risks of Environmental
Exposures to Children'' is available primarily via the Internet on the
National Center for Environmental Assessment's home page under the
Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
 A limited number of paper copies are available from

the Technical Information Staff, NCEA-W; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you are requesting a paper copy, please
provide your name, mailing address, and the document title, ``A
Framework for Assessing Health Risks of Environmental Exposures to
Children''. Copies are not available from Eastern Research Group, Inc.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding information,
registration, and logistics for the external peer-review workshop
should be directed to Eastern Research Group, Inc., 100 Hartwell
Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421-3136; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
781-674-2906; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of
Environmental Information Docket; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
202-566-1753; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you need technical information about the document, please
contact Stan Barone Jr., National Center for Environmental Assessment
(NCEA); telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    Over the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in the
recognition and public health concern for the vulnerability of children
to exposure to environmental agents. Children have unusual patterns of
exposure and have vulnerabilities to chemical agents that are quite
distinct from those of adults, and thus require special consideration
in risk assessment. Children often have disproportionately higher
exposures to certain environmental toxicants because, pound-for-pound
of body weight, children have higher food and water intake and breathe
more air than adults. Metabolic pathways in the young, especially in
the first few months after birth, are immature, and the ability to
detoxify environmental agents is different from that of adults. In
addition, behavior and activity patterns of children often magnify
their exposures. These factors imply that children are likely to have
more substantial exposures than adults to certain environmental agents.
This document attempts to organize and present current knowledge and
practices in a programmatic framework for assessing human health risks
from exposures to environmental agents from prior to conception through
adolescence.
    It describes this framework within the current Agency risk
assessment paradigm, and includes problem formulation, analysis and
risk characterization as discrete steps in the process. Moreover, this
document focuses on mode of action as a context for considering the
toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic differences between children and
adults, and considers approaches for risk assessment in the context of
uncertainty and variability in exposure and critical windows of
development.

    Dated: May 18, 2006.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 06-4817 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Ms. Darcy Bybee
Director, Air Quality Control Program
Air Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

Dear Ms. Bybee,

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency appreciates the opportunity to participate in the State's rulemaking process. The EPA is providing comments pursuant to the public notice of the following rules of which the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has indicated its intent to revise and submit to the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan:

 10 CSR 10-2.205: Control of Emissions from Aerospace Manufacture and Rework Facilities
 10 CSR 10-2.230: Control of Emissions from Industrial Surface Coating Operations
 10 CSR 10-5.220: Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer
 10 CSR 10-5.295: Control of Emissions from Aerospace Manufacture and Rework Facilities
 10 CSR 10-5.330: Control of Emissions from Industrial Surface Coating Operations
 10 CSR 10-6.045: Open Burning Requirements
 10 CSR 10-6.060: Construction Permits Required
 10 CSR 10-6.062: Construction Permits by Rule
 10 CSR 10-6.065: Operating Permits
 10 CSR 10-6.170: Restriction of Particulate Matter to the Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin
 10 CSR 10-6.220: Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Pollutants
 10 CSR 10-6.261: Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
 10 CSR 10-6.330: Restriction of Emissions from Batch-Type Charcoal Kilns
 10 CSR 10-6.372: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual NOx Trading Allowance Allocations
 10 CSR 10-6.374: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Ozone Season NOx Trading Allowance Allocations
 10 CSR 10-6.376: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual SO2 Trading Allowance Allocations
 10 CSR 10-6.390: Control of NOx Emissions from Large Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

The EPA has reviewed the available information in the Draft Text document, the Regulatory Impact Report, the Rulemaking Report, and the Response to Comment for each of the rule revisions. As discussed between the EPA and the MoDNR staff, the EPA is providing these detailed comments to help improve clarity and to simplify the proposed rule changes where possible, in line with the State's efforts to streamline rules.

The EPA is committed to working with the State to help streamline rules and to ensure that when the rule revisions are submitted to the EPA as SIP revision submissions, the submissions contain the information required to meet the Clean Air Act requirements of Section 110(l) and are protective of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    Mark A. Smith
                                    Acting Division Director
                                    Air and Waste Management Division
Enclosure

This enclosure includes comments on the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' proposed rule revisions as provided on the State's Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage and posted for 60-day public comment from August 1, 2018 to October 4, 2018. The EPA's comments are based upon the available information for each rule including the Draft Text document, Regulatory Impact Report, Rulemaking Report and the Response to Comments. These detailed comments are provided to help improve clarity and to simplify the proposed rule changes where possible, in line with the State's efforts to streamline rules. The EPA provided comment on these rule revisions on June 5, 2018, during the Regulatory Impact Report phase of the MoDNR's rulemaking process. The EPA is resubmitting comments that it did not find addressed in the MoDNR's Response to Comment documents.
Rule Specific Comments:
10 CSR 10-2.205 Control of Emissions from Aerospace Manufacture and Rework Facilities and 10 CSR 10 CSR 10-5.295 Control of Emissions from Aerospace Manufacture and Rework Facilities
 As previously commented, there are two references in this rule to a different rule, 10 CSR 10-6.030(22); however, section (22) does not currently exist in 10 CSR 10-6.030 Sampling Methods. The EPA is aware that the MoDNR proposed to add this section to 10 CSR 10-6.030 during a public comment period from May 15, 2018, to August 02, 2018. As such, the EPA would not act on this submission until 10 CSR 10-6.030 was also submitted to EPA.
 As previously commented, the EPA encourages the MoDNR to assess the need for adding a reference to 10 CSR 10-6.030(22) in subsection (5)(A) or (5)(C) of this rule because these sections already specify which test method to use (Method 24 and Methods 18, 25, and/or 25A respectively) and where the methods can be found (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A). The proposed rule text language for the potential revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.030, adding section (22) incorporates 40 CFR Part 60 by reference.  It may be unnecessary to divert the public to another state regulation which incorporates a federal regulation by reference and provides no additional clarity than what is already specified in the subsection (5)(A) and (5)(C) of this rule.
10 CSR 10-2.230 Control of Emissions from Industrial Surface Coating Operations
 As previously commented, where the MoDNR is introducing definitions not previously used (e.g., can coating), the EPA recommends that the MoDNR use already codified definitions found in the Code of Federal Regulations or in the State Implementation Plan where available.
 While the Response to Comment document indicates that the MoDNR intends to delete the definition "can coating"; the proposed rule text on the Missouri Secretary of State webpage still includes the definition "can coating."
 As previously commented, the MoDNR is adding exemptions to 10 CSR 10-2.230 at subsection (1)(C).  The MoDNR will need to submit a demonstration with the SIP submission showing how the added exemptions meet the requirements of Clean Air Act sections 110(l) and 193 of the also known as the "anti-backsliding" provisions. These sections relate to the EPA's authority to approve a SIP revision that removes or modifies control measure(s) in the SIP only after the state has demonstrated that such a removal or modification will not interfere with attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Rate of Progress, Reasonable Further Progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
10 CSR 10-5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer
 As previously commented, the rule text proposes to change the applicability of this rule in paragraph (3)(C)1. from tanks that are between 500 gallons up to 1,000 gallons to tanks that are 550 gallons up to 1,000 gallons. Because of the change in applicability, the MoDNR will need to ensure that MoDNR's State Implementation Plan submission meets the requirements of sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA. It should be noted that the MoDNR did rely on this regulation as part of its maintenance plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
 The EPA has previously commented that it recommends that the MoDNR add information to the rule at part (3)(C)1.C.(III) explaining how the staff director will determine equivalency of the pressure/vacuum valve.
      The Response to Comment Document states: "The draft language provides for the staff director to approve a pressure/vacuum valve that is equivalent to that certified by CARB. We feel this equivalent language is adequate for the smaller size tanks covered under this paragraph and is protective of air quality. Adding specific test method requirements such as EPA recommends would not be consistent with how larger tank components are addressed in paragraphs (3)(C)2. and (3)(C)3."
      The EPA recognizes that the rule allows flexibility for approval of components for larger tanks; however, the EPA is still concerned that the rule as drafted does not specify a way for the staff director to determine equivalency to a pressure/vacuum valve that is California Air Resource Board certified. The EPA continues to recommend that the MoDNR add information to part (3)(C)1.C.(III). For example, language could be added indicating that the staff director will determine that a pressure/vacuum valve is equivalent if it has met the alternative test method requirements in 40 CFR § 63.7(f) as specified in 40 CFR § 63.11120(a)(1)(ii). The EPA is concerned about the approvability of this rule in the absence of this additional language.
10 CSR 10-5.330 Control of Emissions from Industrial Surface Coating Operations
      No comment.
10 CSR 10-6.045 Open Burning
 As previously commented, where the MoDNR is introducing definitions not previously used in its rule (e.g. air curtain incinerator, vegetative waste, wood processing facility), the EPA recommends that the MoDNR use already published definitions found in the CFR or MoDNR's approved 111(d) state plans where applicable.
      For example, MoDNR is proposing to define air curtain incinerator at 10 CSR 10-6.045(2)(A), but has not previously defined this term in its 10 CSR 10-6.045 Open Burning regulation or its 10 CSR 10-6.020 Definitions and Common Reference Tables regulation. The EPA recommends that the MoDNR use a previously promulgated definition such as the definition for air curtain incinerator provided at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CCCC- Standards of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) (40 CFR § 60.2245), 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DDDD- Emissions Guidelines and Compliance and Times for CISWI (40 CFR § 60.2810) or the state's 111(d) plan to implement the CISWI guidelines as approved at 40 CFR Part 62, Subpart AA, 40 CFR § 62.6360.
      The definition of air curtain in subsection (2)(A) is different than the definition in subsection (3)(F). Since the definition at subsection (3)(F) aligns with already promulgated definitions at 40 CFR § 60.2245, 40 CFR § 60.2810 and the state's approved CISWI 111(d) plan, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR revise its proposed definition at subsection (2)(A) to match subsection (3)(F).
 As previously commented, the proposed rule text removes a reference to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart CCCC which identifies that air curtain incinerators are CISWIs. The EPA continues to recommend that the MoDNR retain this reference, and add clarifying language that air curtain incinerators that meet the conditions of this rule are also required to meet the requirements of 40 CFR §§ 60.2242 (Title V permit obligations), 60.2250 (emission limitations obligations), 60.2255 (opacity monitoring obligations), and 60.2260 (record keeping and reporting obligations).
 The following differences in the proposed text at paragraphs (3)(F)1., (3)(F)2., subsection (3)(G), and section (4) should be corrected if mirroring "parts" of 40 CFR §§ 60.2245 through 60.2260 of Subpart CCCC in the Open Burning rule is MoDNR's intent (as described in the Response to Comments document).
 The word "and" is missing between paragraph 3(G)1. and paragraph (3)(G)2. (40 CFR § 60.2250)
 The requirement for opacity to be determined by using the average of three 1-hour blocks is missing from paragraph (3)(G)3. (40 CFR § 60.2250))
 The words "60 days after achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days after initial startup of such facility initial test" as specified in §60.8 is missing from section (5). (40 CFR § 60.2255)
 Subsection (4)(D) requires the submission of the initial and annual opacity test results no later than 60 days following the test but it does not indicate where or to whom the submission should be made.  The EPA encourages the MoDNR to include clear and specific submission requirements.
 As previously commented, the EPA encourages the MoDNR to assess the need for adding a reference to 10 CSR 10-6.030(22) in subsection (5) of this rule because this subsection already specifies which test method to utilize (Method 9) and where it can be found (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4). The proposed rule text language for the potential revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.030, adding section (22), just incorporates 40 CFR Part 60 by reference. It may be unnecessary to divert the public to another state regulation, which then incorporates a federal regulation by reference and provides no additional clarity, when the requirement is already specified section (5) of this rule.

10 CSR 10-6.060 Construction Permits Required
 As previously commented, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR move the information at subsection (1)(C) which establishes the need to obtain a permit to subsection (1)(A) to provide additional clarity to the public. Additionally, the use of "has" at subsection (1)(A) seems like a series of incomplete sentences. For example, (1)(A)(5) states "Has construction of an incinerator." The EPA recommends "Before construction of an incinerator."
 As previously commend, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR clarify the new criteria in paragraph (1)(A)3. The Response to Comments document indicates this is addressed but it is still unclear. Paragraph (1)(A)3 uses the term "emission increase" but does not specify if the "emission increase" is based on actual emissions, allowable emissions, or potential to emit. It also does not specify a time frame (i.e., an annual emission increase can occur without having an hourly emission increase) to evaluate. Additionally, paragraph (1)(A)3. seems to require a permit for any increase, no matter how small an increase, if the existing installation has a potential to emit greater than the de minimis threshold levels.
 Previously, the EPA suggested that the MoDNR use "begin actual" instead of "commence" construction at paragraph (1)(D)1. because "begin actual construction" is defined in 10 CSR 10-6.020 Definitions and Common Reference Tables (which adopts the definitions in paragraph (b) of 40 CFR § 52.21). The revised proposed rule text uses "start of actual construction". "Start of actual construction" is not defined and using this phrase makes the rule unclear to its meaning. The EPA recommends using "begin actual construction" or clearly defining "start of actual construction" in the rule.
 The EPA suggest that the MoDNR revise the language at (1)(A)(4). because new construction would not be a major modification the way it is defined. The EPA suggests the following language: "The modification is a major modification as defined in 40 CFR § 52.21(b) or for nonattainment pollutants as defined in 40 CFR § 51.165(a)(1)(v)."
 As previously commented, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR retain the existing applicability language for portable equipment in 10 CSR 10-6.060(4)(A)1. because the new language appears to allow very large expansions at existing installations. Since the focus of the applicability appears to be based on the size of "construction or modification" (e.g. the project) and not the size of the installation, the 250 ton per year applicability criteria for particulate matter could far exceed the de minimis thresholds if the existing source is already major for particulate matter; potentially triggering Prevention of Significant Deterioration review. Since the air quality analysis in section (4)(E) is discretionary, very large sources of PM could potentially qualify for a portable permit in conflict with the requirement that any new construction or modification not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance. If MoDNR proceeds with the expanded 250 tpy PM applicability threshold for portable projects, the MoDNR will need to ensure that MoDNR's State Implementation Plan submission meets the requirements of sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA.
 The Response to Comments document indicates that the MoDNR plans to add the definitions of "screening model action levels" and "risk assessment levels" to the rule (a suggestion previously made by the EPA) and that the MoDNR "plans to work with EPA to ensure SIP approval of the HAP modeling requirements." The EPA would like to clarify that the EPA's approval of the HAP modeling requirements would be completed in accordance with CAA Section 112(l) and is not a SIP action.
 As previously commented, the proposed text of 10 CSR 10-6.030(21) incorporates 40 CFR Part 51 by reference. It is not recommended for the state to incorporate 40 CFR Part 51 in whole. If the federal definitions of 40 CFR Part 51 are absent or differ from those found in 10 CSR 10-6.020 Definitions and Common Reference Tables or 10 CSR 10-6.060(2), for clarity, the EPA recommends that the full text of the definitions (e.g. major stationary source, major modification, net emissions increase and significant), are included at sections (2), (7) or even 10 CSR 10-6.020 rather than incorporate 40 CFR Part 51 in whole, by reference.
 The EPA recommends that the MoDNR review the wording of the definition of "Chemical Process Plant" in paragraph (7)(A)1. to determine if including the word "not" meets with the department's intention of adding the definition to the section. That is, the EPA believes that the MoDNR meant to say that ethanol plants are included in the definition of "Chemical Process Plant" in section (7) of the rule as opposed to the proposed text that says that ethanol plants are not included in the definition. Additionally, for the purpose of implementing section (7) of the rule, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR clarify that the definition of "Chemical Process Plant" found at paragraph (7)(A)(1) supersedes any definition of "Chemical Process Plant" in paragraph (7)(B)6. which refers to the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 in subsection (8)(A).
 The revised proposed rule addresses the EPA's previous recommendation that the MoDNR consider revising the proposed language at section (9), however the revised language appears to no longer specify who must obtain a permit. The EPA recommends additional clarification of the proposed rule text to make it clear to the public when a permit is needed at section (9). The EPA would like to clarify that this section would not be approved into the SIP. Instead the requirements of 40 CFR § 63.42(a) would apply for the CAA § 112(g) requirements.
 As previously commented, because "general" permits are more akin to permits-by-rule, and contain administrative requirements that apply directly to the MoDNR, the EPA recommends moving section (6) to its own rule (i.e., promulgating 10 CSR 10-6.063, General Construction Permit for example) so that sources can quickly evaluate any benefit they might gain from the streamlined permitting requirements.
10 CSR 10-6.062 Construction Permits by Rule
 The EPA recommends that the MoDNR retain the language that it has proposed to delete from subparagraph (3)(B)2.E. that specifies the operational temperature of the second chamber of the incinerator. It would be unclear to the public what temperature is to be monitored, and whether an alarm would be triggered by a temperature excursion, if this language is removed from the rule.
 The proposed rule allows the use of manufacturer's specification or a stack test to show 99.9% combustion efficiency, however, it is unclear from the rule what minimum temperature is required if a stack test option is used. EPA recommends that MoDNR add a minimum temperature requirement and ensure that the requirement in the rule is clear. For example, is it the average temperature during the test, the lowest temperature during the test, or some other temperature? The MoDNR should also make clear how the combustion efficiency is determined, the test methods used, and what pollutants are measured.
10 CSR 10-6.065 Operating Permits
 The EPA previously recommend that the MoDNR revise items 2. and 3. of the Regulatory Impact Report to clarify which sources specifically would no longer need to obtain a basic operating permit, how the MoDNR will be made aware of the presence of new sources if not requiring a basic operating permit, which "other air program rules" the source would need to follow and how compliance with "other air program rules" will be enforced. The Response to Comment document states that these changes were made; however, the EPA does not see the revised language to items 2. and 3. in the RIR posted on the Missouri Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage.
 As previously commented, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR create separate standalone rules (e.g., promulgating 10 CSR 10-6.066 Intermediate State Permits to Operate and 10 CSR 10-6.067 Title V Operating Permits) to increase clarity to the public on the different permitting programs in the state and the permitting expectations of those programs if the MoDNR finalizes the revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.065 as proposed (i.e., removing the basic operating permit program).
 As previously commented, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR consider switching the requirement, in subsection (5)(D), that a source provide notification to the state if it wants to opt-out of unified review to a requirement that a source provide notification to the state if it wants to opt-in to unified review instead.
10 CSR 10-6.170 Restriction of Particulate Matter to the Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin
       The EPA previously recommended that the MoDNR add provisions to the rule to make it clear what a "reasonable degree" is, which "techniques" the director might approve, and how the director might make that determination (the proposed language is found at paragraph (3)(A)2. and the addition of section (5) Test Methods which states, "do not apply".)
      The Response to Comment document states that the MoDNR is not making changes to the proposed rule text because the proposed language does not "change the regulatory language already approved in the SIP." The EPA believes it is appropriate to provide comment to the MoDNR on language that would strengthen the proposed language and/or provided clarity to the public. Without provisions in the rule to make it clear what a "reasonable degree" is, which "techniques" the director might approve and how the director might make that determination, the EPA would need to evaluate the approvability of this provision when submitted as a State Implementation Plan revision.
       The EPA recommends that the MoDNR provide regulatory language on what record keeping and reporting requirements would exist for a facility to determine compliance with the rule.
10 CSR 10-6.220 Restriction of Visible Air Contaminants
       The EPA previously commented on the proposed text at subsection (1)(A) which exempts internal combustion engines from the opacity rule. The EPA's concern is these engines, if fired with diesel, can have visible emissions that exceed the numeric opacity limits in section (3) of the proposed rule text. In previous comment, the EPA recommended that the MoDNR consider limiting the exemption to internal combustion engines firing natural gas or other clean gaseous fuels to ensure that MoDNR's State Implementation Plan submission meets the requirements of sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA.
      The MoDNR's Response to Comment document indicates that it was not making changes to the rule based on the EPA's recommendation because the proposed rule text does not change the regulatory language in a SIP revision submittal made in November 2016. The EPA has not acted on the November 2016 SIP revision submittal. The EPA's obligation in review is to compare the proposed rule text changes to the approved SIP rule text. As such, the EPA continues to recommend that the MoDNR add language to the proposed rule limiting the exemption to internal combustion engines firing natural gas or other clean gaseous fuels.
       As previously commented, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR consider exempting Portland Cement kilns from the rule altogether in section (1) as it has for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters subject to 40 CFR Part 63, subparts DDDDD, JJJJJ and UUUUU, if all the Portland Cement plants in Missouri are subject to 40 CFR Part 63, subparts LLL and EEE.
       The EPA previously recommended that the MoDNR further explain its rationale in the RIR why the visible emission limits in section (3)(A) seem to still apply to portland cement kilns even though the monitoring requirement has been removed.  In some cases, portland cement operations have had difficulty with detached plumes or secondary formation of PM away from the stack which are often not detectable by a COMS or CMS at the stack location, so its possible MoDNR may be retaining the numerical portland cement kiln opacity limits at section (3)(A) for these types of instances. The public can only assume that this is so the state can still act on opacity emissions exceeding the numerical thresholds which are otherwise met at the stack and verified through the continuous monitoring required by 40 CFR Part 63, subparts LLL and EEE. The MoDNR's Response to Comment document states that the MoDNR "plans to further explain that 10 CSR 10-6.220 still applies to Portland cement kilns" but the EPA could not find revised language in the documents posted on the MoDNR's Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage or the Missouri Secretary of State website.
       As previously commented, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR revise the RIR language to reference the correct CFR citation as follows, "strict particulate matter (PM) limits in 40 CFR 60 63 Subparts LLL and EEE." The Response to Comment document states that the MoDNR intends to modify the RIR but the version of the RIR on the MoDNR's Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage does not contain the revisions.
       As previously commented, the EPA recommends that the MoDNR revise the RIR language to reference the correct term as follows, "required to monitor PM emissions using PM continuous opacity emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) which are more sensitive than COMS." The Response to Comment document states that the MoDNR intends to modify the RIR but the version of the RIR on the MoDNR's Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage does not contain the revisions.
       As previously commented, there are three references to the regulatory citation 10 CSR 10-6.030(22); however, section (22) does not exist in the state's 10 CSR 10-6.030 Sampling Methods. The EPA understands, from review of the MoDNR's Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage, that the MoDNR is in the process of revising 10 CSR 10-6.030 Sampling Methods and that those potential rule changes were made available for public comment from May 15, 2018, to August 02, 2018. As such, the EPA would not act on this submission until 10 CSR 10-6.030 was also submitted to the EPA.
       As previously commented, the EPA encourages the MoDNR to assess the need for adding a reference to 10 CSR 10-6.030(22) in sections (2), (3), and (5) of this rule because those sections already specify which 40 CFR Part 60 requirements apply. The proposed rule text language for the potential revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.030, adding section (22), incorporates 40 CFR Part 60 by reference. It may be unnecessary to divert the public to another state regulation, which then incorporates a federal regulation by reference, and provides no additional clarity, when the requirement is already specified in sections (2), (3), and (5) of this rule.
10 CSR 10-6.261 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
 Based on the information provided in the Response to Comment document, the RIR and the Rulemaking Report, the EPA is concerned with the proposed rule text removing "Table I  -  Sources with SO2 emission limits necessary to address the 2010 1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard" from section (3)(A) and to remove the requirement for owners or operators of sources subject to the rule in Jackson and Jefferson Counties to accept delivery of only ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil with a maximum fuel sulfur content of 15 ppm for use in unit(s) fueled, in whole or in part, by diesel, No. 1 fuel oil and/or No. 2 fuel oil, no later than January 1, 2017 from section (3)(D).
      The Response to Comment letter indicates that the MoDNR intends to submit a redesignation request to the EPA for the Jackson County 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide nonattainment area. To redesignate an area to attainment a NAAQS, the state must demonstrate to the EPA that the area is attaining the standard based on permanent and enforceable conditions. Provisions in Table I were specifically listed in the MoDNR's 2015 Nonattainment Area Plan for the Jackson County 2010 1-hr SO2 nonattainment area as necessary for attainment of the NAAQS.[,]  By removing the limits from the SO2 rule, and not describing why the specific limit is no longer necessary or providing a citation to another document where the emission limit is duplicated (and both permanent and enforceable), the removal of Table I from 10 CSR 10-6.261, and the ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil requirement, introduces uncertainty as to how this will ensure protection of the NAAQS. For the EPA to redesignate the area to attainment, the MoDNR would need to provide additional explanation for why the limits originally identified in Table I, and the requirement to burn ultra-low sulfur fuel in applicable units, are no longer necessary.
 As previously commented, item 3 in the RIR discusses the "environmental and economic costs and benefits of the proposed rulemaking." However, there is no discussion on the environmental costs or benefits of the proposal. For example, how does removing the provision in subsection (3)(D) that requires sources in Jackson and Jefferson counties to only use ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil to allow sources to use a wider range of fuels impact attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS? Does removing this fuel restriction that part of the 2015 Jackson County 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP control strategy impact the environment or negatively affect SIPs that MoDNR has submitted for the EPA's approval? At a minimum MoDNR should explain how the change in the limit of liquid fuel sulfur content in Jackson County from 15 ppm to 35,249 ppm (pre-1968 units) or 8,812 ppm (post-1968 units) would not impact the Jackson County nonattainment area's ability to attain and or maintain the NAAQS.
10 CSR 10-6.330 Restriction of Emissions from Batch-Type Charcoal Kilns
      No comment.
10 CSR 10-6.372 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual NOx Trading Allowance Allocations
No comment.
10 CSR 10-6.374 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Ozone Season NOx Trading Allowance Allocations
 The EPA previously provided comment that the RIR and the Rulemaking Report describing the MoDNR's proposed action to incorporate the Cross State Air Pollution Rule Federal Implementation Plan into the State Implementation Plan by reference included some inconsistencies with the FIP methodology for allocating CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances. Specifically, the EPA had concern with the Rule Making Report listing three sections (40 CFR § 97.811(a), 40 CFR § 97.811(b)(1), and 40 CFR § 97.812(a)) that should not be included in the list of exclusions and the RIR language does not explain the differences between allocation methodologies in the proposed rule text for ozone season program compliance versus annual program compliance. The Response to Comment document states that the MoDNR "plans to update question number (3) of the Rulemaking Report to remove the references to 40 CFR § 97.811(a), 40 CFR § 97.811(b)(1), and 40 CFR § 97.812(a)" and "provide a description of the difference between the alternative allocation methodologies (alternative approaches) in question 7 of the RIR so that it is clear what they are and which state CSAPR rules they affect." However, this revised language was not available in the documents posted on the MoDNR Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage for review.
10 CSR 10-6.376 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual SO2 Trading Allowance Allocations
	No comment.
10 CSR 10-6.390 Control of NOx Emissions from Large Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
 The EPA previously commented that the MoDNR will need to submit a demonstration showing how the added exemption for Spark Ignition engines to the exemption provided at paragraph (1)(B)2., to the State Implementation Plan submission meets the requirements of Section 110(l) and 193 of the also known as the "anti-backsliding" provisions of the CAA. The Response to Comment document indicates that a demonstration was posted to the MoDNR's Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage. While the EPA would agree that a 25 tpy NOx source is unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality, the demonstration does not discuss air quality near the exempt sources. The EPA recommends that the MoDNR add rationale why this SIP change would not impact attainment of standards near the exempt source to ensure that the SIP meets the anti-backsliding requirements of the CAA section 110(l).
 As previously commented, there are three references to the regulatory citation 10 CSR 10-6.030(22); however, section (22) does not exist in the SIP approved 10 CSR 10-6.030 Sampling Methods. The EPA understands, from review of the MoDNR's Regulatory Action Tracking System webpage, that the MoDNR is in the process of revising 10 CSR 10-6.030 Sampling Methods and that those potential rule changes were made available for public comment from May 15, 2018, to August 02, 2018. As such, the EPA would not act on this submission until 10 CSR 10-6.030 was also submitted to the EPA.
 As previously commented, the EPA encourages the MoDNR to assess the need for adding a reference to 10 CSR 10-6.030(22) to sections (4) and (5) of this rule. These sections already specify that the requirements are for a Continuous Emissions Monitoring Station installed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60, Appendix B and F. The proposed rule text language for the potential revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.030, adding section (22), just incorporates 40 CFR Part 60 by reference. It may be unnecessary to divert the public to another state regulation, which then incorporates a federal regulation by reference, and provides no additional clarity, when the requirement is already specified in sections (4) and (5).


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44688-44689]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0282; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-31]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Mountain Home, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D airspace at the Mountain Home Air
Force Base Airport. This action also modifies Class E airspace,
designated as a surface area. Additionally, this action modifies Class
E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. This
action also modifies Class E airspace, extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface. Further, this action removes Mountain Home Municipal
Airport from the legal description of the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface. Lastly, this action
implements two administrative amendments to the airspace legal
descriptions.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. 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 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov//air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you
can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; 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 modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Mountain Home Air Force
Base Airport, Mountain Home, ID, to ensure the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 20451; April 13, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0282 to
modify Class D and Class E at Mountain Home Air Force Base Airport,
Mountain Home, ID. 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 D, E2, and E5 airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D,
dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation 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 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D 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 modifies Class D airspace at the Mountain Home Air Force Base
Airport. This airspace area is described as follows: That airspace
extending upward from the surface to and including 5,500 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB. 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 Chart Supplement.
    This action also modifies Class E airspace, designated as a surface
area, to match the new Class D dimensions. This airspace area is
described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface
within a 5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB. 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 Chart Supplement.
    Additionally, this action modifies Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface. This airspace areas is
described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB.
    This action also modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface. This airspace area is described as
follows: That airspace extending upward from 1,200

feet above the surface within a 30-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB.
    Further, this action removes Mountain Home Municipal Airport from
the legal description of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.
    Lastly, this action implements two administrative amendments to the
airspace legal descriptions. The term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' in
the Class D description is updated to ``Chart Supplement''. The Class E
airspace, designated as a surface area, is part-time. The following
language has been added to the legal description: 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 Chart Supplement.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would 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 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(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 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM ID D Mountain Home, ID [Amended]

Mountain Home AFB, ID
    (Lat. 43[deg]02'37'' N, long. 115[deg]52'21'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
5,500 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB. 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 Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM ID E2 Mountain Home, ID [Amended]

Mountain Home AFB, ID
    (Lat. 43[deg]02'37'' N, long. 115[deg]52'21'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile
radius of Mountain Home AFB. 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 Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM ID E5 Mountain Home, ID [Amended]

Mountain Home AFB, ID
    (Lat. 43[deg]02'37'' N, long. 115[deg]52'21'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.2-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 30-mile
radius of Mountain Home AFB.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 20, 2020.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-16025 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2983]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00836]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74051; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order
Types and Modifiers, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1

January 14, 2015.
    On November 14, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend Exchange Rule 13 and other Exchange rules governing order types
and order modifiers. The proposed rule change was published in the
Federal Register on December 4, 2014.\3\ On December 22, 2014, the
Exchange submitted Partial Amendment No. 1 to the Commission and filed
the Partial Amendment No. 1 to the public comment file.\4\ The
Commission has received no other comment on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73703 (December 4,
2014), 79 FR 72039.
    \4\ See letter from Martha Redding, Chief Counsel, New York
Stock Exchange, to Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Commission,
dated December 22, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of the notice of the filing of a proposed rule change,
or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed
rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
disapproved. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as
modified by Partial Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates March 4, 2015,
as the date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change (File Number SR-NYSE-2014-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-00836 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 29, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15461-15463]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No. 170103009-7300-02]
RIN 0694-AH28

Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)
by removing seven persons under ten entries from the Entity List. This
rule removes four persons listed under the destination of Germany, one
person listed under the destination of Hong Kong, one person listed
under the destination of India, one person listed under the destination
of Singapore, one person listed under the destination of Switzerland,
and two persons under the destination of the United Arab Emirates from
the Entity List. The three additional entries are being removed to
account for two persons listed under more than one destination on the
Entity List. All seven of the removals are the result of requests for
removal received by BIS pursuant to the section of the EAR used for
requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity and a
review of information provided in the removal requests in accordance
with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity
List entity.

DATES: This rule is effective March 29, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee,
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of
Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744) identifies entities
and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a
significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary
to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United
States. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits
the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports,
and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The ``license review
policy'' for each listed entity or other person is identified in the
License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the
availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register
notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places
entities and other persons on the Entity List pursuant to sections of
part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746
(Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.
    The ERC, composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce
(Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury,
makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other
modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an
entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove
or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

ERC Entity List Decisions

Removal From the Entity List

    This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove the following
ten entries from the Entity List on the basis of removal requests
received by BIS: Industrio GmbH, Martin Hess, Peter Duenker, and
Wilhelm ``Bill'' Holler, all located in Germany; Frank Genin, located
in Hong Kong and the U.A.E. (which accounts for two of the entries this
final rule removes); Beaumont Trading AG, located in India,
Switzerland, and the U.A.E. (which accounts for three of the entries
this final rule removes); and Amanda Sng, located in Singapore. These
seven persons under ten entries were added to the Entity List on March
21, 2016 (see 81 FR 14958). The ERC decided to remove these seven
persons under ten entries based on information received by BIS pursuant
to Sec.  744.16 of the EAR

and further review conducted by the ERC.
    This final rule implements the decision to remove the following
four entities located in Germany, one entity located in Hong Kong, one
entity located in India, one entity located in Singapore, one entity
located in Switzerland, and two entities located in the U.A.E. from the
Entity List:

Germany

    (1) Industrio GmbH, Dreichlinger Street 79, Neumarkt, 92318
Germany;
    (2) Martin Hess, Dreichlinger Street 79, Neumarkt, 92318 Germany;
    (3) Peter Duenker, a.k.a., the following alias: -Peter Dunker.
Dreichlinger Street 79, Neumarkt, 92318 Germany; and
    (4) Wilhelm ``Bill'' Holler, Dreichlinger Street 79, Neumarkt,
92318 Germany.

Hong Kong

    (1) Frank Genin, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Franck Genin. RM
1905, 19/F, Nam Wo Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong
Kong (See alternate addresses under U.A.E.).

India

    (1) Beaumont Trading AG, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Beaumont
Tradex India. 412 World Trade Center, Conaught Place, New Delhi--
110001, India; and 4th Floor Statesman House Building, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 11001, India; and Express Towers, 1st Floor, Express
Building, 9-10 Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-12, India (See
alternate addresses under Switzerland and U.A.E.).

Singapore

    (1) Amanda Sng, 211 Henderson Road, #13-02 Henderson Industrial
Park, Singapore 159552.

Switzerland

    (1) Beaumont Trading AG, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Beaumont
Tradex India. Haldenstrasse 5, Baar (Zug Canton), CH 6342 Switzerland
(See alternate addresses in India and the U.A.E.).

United Arab Emirates

    (1) Beaumont Trading AG, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Beaumont
Tradex India. DMCC Business Center, 49 Almas Tower--JLT Dubai, U.A.E.
(See alternate addresses in India and Switzerland); and
    (2) Frank Genin, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Franck Genin.
Villa No. 6 AL WASL RD, 332/45b Jumeira 1, Dubai, Dubai 25344, U.A.E.;
and Suite 608 Atrium Center, Bank St., Bur Dubai, Dubai, U.A.E., P.O.
Box 16048; and Suite 706 Atrium Center Bank Street Bur Dubai, Dubai
U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 10559 Ras Al Khaimah, U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 25344
Bur Dubai, Dubai, U.A.E.; and 2nd Floor, #202 Sheik Zayed Road Dubai
POB 25344 U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 28515, Dubai, U.A.E.; and 202 B Sama
Tower Sheikh Tayed Road #3 Dubai, U.A.E. P.O. Box 16048; and BC2-414,
RAK Free Trade Zone P.O. Box 16048 Ras Al Khaimah, U.A.E.; and G1/RAK
Free Trade Zone RAK--U.A.E.; and G-17 Sheikh Tayed Road #3 Ras Al
Khaimah Free Trade Zone, Dubai, U.A.E. (See alternate address under
Hong Kong).
    The removal of the persons referenced above, which was approved by
the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement No.
4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to
these entities. However, the removal of these persons from the Entity
List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of
the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an
entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based
license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under
General Prohibition 5 in Sec.  736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides
that, ``you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport
any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is
prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.'' Additionally, this removal does
not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport
or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the
EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the
EAR, ``BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,'' when
persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.

Export Administration Act of 1979

    Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August
20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17,
2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order
13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by
the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has
continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out
the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate
and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222,
as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves
collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among
other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of
43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours
associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not
expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments
regarding the collection of information associated with this rule,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. For the seven persons under ten entries removed from the Entity
List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements
that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public
comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.
    In determining whether to grant a request for removal from the
Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User
Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments
made by listed persons requesting removal from the

Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part
744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information,
commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all
established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public
comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR
49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). These seven removals under ten
entries have been made within the established regulatory framework of
the Entity List. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public
comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they
turn away potential sales to the entities removed by this rule because
the customer remained a listed person on the Entity List even after the
ERC approved the removal pursuant to the rule published at 73 FR 49311
on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS
allows the applicants to receive U.S. exports immediately because the
applicants already have received approval by the ERC pursuant to 15 CFR
part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b).
    Removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC involve
interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-
public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and
classified information, and the measurement of such information against
the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively
reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from
the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5 and 15
CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty
to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relied
to make the decisions to remove these entities. In addition, the
information included in the removal request is information exchanged
between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (section 12(c) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979), BIS is restricted from sharing with
the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List contain
confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive
review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such removal
requests.
    Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not
take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in
the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in
effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because this rule is a
substantive rule which relieves a restriction. This rule's removal of
seven persons under ten entries from the Entity List removes
requirements (the Entity-List-based license requirement and limitation
on use of license exceptions) on these seven persons being removed from
the Entity List. The rule does not impose a requirement on any other
person for these removals from the Entity List.
    No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an
opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are
not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
are not applicable. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility
analysis is required and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 744--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179;
E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59
FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR,
1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p.
228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222,
66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587
(August 8, 2016); Notice of September 15, 2016, 81 FR 64343
(September 19, 2016); Notice of November 8, 2016, 81 FR 79379
(November 10, 2016); Notice of January 13, 2017, 82 FR 6165 (January
18, 2017).

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744--[Amended]

0
2. Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 is amended:
0
a. By removing, under Germany, four German entities, ``Industrio GmbH,
Dreichlinger Street 79, Neumarkt, 92318 Germany''; ``Martin Hess,
Dreichlinger Street 79, Neumarkt, 92318 Germany''; ``Peter Duenker,
a.k.a., the following alias: -Peter Dunker. Dreichlinger Street 79,
Neumarkt, 92318 Germany''; and ``Wilhelm ``Bill'' Holler, Dreichlinger
Street 79, Neumarkt, 92318 Germany'';
0
b. By removing, under Hong Kong, one Hong Kong entity, ``Frank Genin,
a.k.a., the following one alias: -Franck Genin. RM 1905, 19/F, Nam Wo
Hong Bldg., 148 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wang, Hong Kong (See alternate
addresses under U.A.E.)'';
0
c. By removing, under India, one Indian entity, ``Beaumont Trading AG,
a.k.a., the following one alias: -Beaumont Tradex India. 412 World
Trade Center, Conaught Place, New Delhi--110001, India; and 4th Floor
Statesman House Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 11001, India; and
Express Towers, 1st Floor, Express Building, 9-10 Bahadurshah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-12, India (See alternate addresses under Switzerland
and U.A.E.)'';
0
d. By removing, under Singapore, one Singaporean entity, ``Amanda Sng,
211 Henderson Road, #13-02 Henderson Industrial Park, Singapore
159552'';
0
e. By removing under Switzerland, one Swiss entity, ``Beaumont Trading
AG, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Beaumont Tradex India.
Haldenstrasse 5, Baar (Zug Canton), CH 6342 Switzerland (See alternate
addresses in India and the U.A.E.)''; and
0
 f. By removing under the United Arab Emirates, two Emirati entities,
``Beaumont Trading AG, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Beaumont
Tradex India. DMCC Business Center, 49 Almas Tower--JLT Dubai, U.A.E.
(See alternate addresses in India and Switzerland)''; and ``Frank
Genin, a.k.a., the following one alias: -Franck Genin. Villa No. 6 AL
WASL RD, 332/45b Jumeira 1, Dubai, Dubai 25344, U.A.E.; and Suite 608
Atrium Center, Bank St., Bur Dubai, Dubai, U.A.E., P.O. Box 16048; and
Suite 706 Atrium Center Bank Street Bur Dubai, Dubai U.A.E.; and P.O.
Box 10559 Ras Al Khaimah, U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 25344 Bur Dubai, Dubai,
U.A.E.; and 2nd Floor, #202 Sheik Zayed Road Dubai POB 25344 U.A.E.;
and P.O. Box 28515, Dubai, U.A.E.; and 202 B Sama Tower Sheikh Tayed
Road #3 Dubai, U.A.E. P.O.Box 16048; and BC2-414, RAK Free Trade Zone
P.O. Box 16048 Ras Al Khaimah, U.A.E.; and G1/RAK Free Trade Zone RAK--
U.A.E.; and G-17 Sheikh Tayed Road #3 Ras Al Khaimah Free Trade Zone,
Dubai, U.A.E. (See alternate address under Hong Kong)''.

    Dated: March 24, 2017.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-06228 Filed 3-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 54 (Thursday, March 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15843-15844]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05704]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88385; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving Forty-Fifth Amendment to the
Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection,
Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an
Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis

March 13, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On September 11, 2019, participants \1\ of the Joint Self-
Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation,
and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges
Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan'' or ``Plan'') filed \2\ with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') pursuant to Section
11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \3\ and Rule 608
of Regulation NMS thereunder,\4\ a proposal to amend the Nasdaq/UTP
Plan.\5\ This amendment represents the Forty-Fifth Amendment to the
Plan (``Amendment''). The Participants have proposed to resolve textual
inconsistencies in Plan provisions governing the dissemination of last-
sale price reports by the Processor \6\ during a Regulatory Halt.\7\
The Amendment was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 28, 2020.\8\ One comment letter was received.\9\ This order
approves the Amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These participants are: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.;
The Investors' Exchange LLC; Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.; Nasdaq
BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq PHLX, Inc.; The Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE American LLC; NYSE
Arca, Inc.; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; and NYSE National, Inc. (each a
``Participant'' and collectively, the ``Participants'').
    \2\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chairman, Operating Committee,
UTP Plan, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission (dated
September 6, 2019).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C 78k-1(a)(3).
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \5\ The Nasdaq/UTP Plan, which governs the collection,
processing, and dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation
information and transaction reports in Eligible Securities is a
``transaction reporting plan'' under Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, 17
CFR 242.601, and a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.608. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR at 20891 (April 26, 2007).
    \6\ See Section III.Q of the Plan (defining ``Processor'').
    \7\ See Section III.S of the Plan (defining ``Regulatory
Halt'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88017 (January 23,
2020), 85 FR at 5062 (January 28, 2020).
    \9\ See Letter from Kelvin To, Founder and President, Data
Boiler Technologies LLC, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission (dated February 4, 2020). The comment letter is not
germane to the Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Plan currently includes inconsistent language with respect to
the Processor's ability to disseminate last-sale price reports during a
Regulatory Halt. Section X.A of the Plan prohibits the Processor from
including in the consolidated tape during a Regulatory Halt any last-
sale reports. Section X.C, however, includes language that specifically
permits the Processor to ``collect and disseminate Transaction
Information'' during a Regulatory Halt.
    The Participants have stated that, in practice, the Processor has
been following Section X.C during Regulatory Halts and will immediately
disseminate last-sale price reports during a Regulatory Halt. The
Participants believe that the Processor's current practice helps to
reduce inefficiencies and confusion among market participants with
respect to the operation of the Plan during ``race conditions,'' when
it might be unclear whether the trade reported by the Participant
occurred before or after the Participant had received notice of the
Regulatory Halt. As a result, the Participants have determined it
appropriate to amend the language of the Plan to resolve the
inconsistent language described above in order to confirm that the
Processor may continue to disseminate last-sale price reports during a
Regulatory Halt. In addition, the Amendment would align the Plan
language with a corresponding amendment being proposed by the CTA
Plan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88016 (January 23,
2020), 85 FR at 5060 (January 28, 2020) (proposal to amend CTA
Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the Amendment is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the amendment is consistent with Section 11A of the Act which provides,
among other things, that the Commission may prescribe rules as

necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act to
assure the prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair collection, processing,
distribution, and publication of information with respect to quotations
for and transactions in securities and the fairness and usefulness of
the form and content of such information.\12\ The Commission also finds
that the Amendment is consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, which
provides that the Commission shall approve an amendment to a Plan if it
finds that such plan or amendment is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Commission has considered the Amendment's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \12\ See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(c)(1)(B).
    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Amendment furthers these goals by
eliminating any potential uncertainty in determining whether a trade
reported to the Processor during race conditions occurred before or
after the Participant who reported the trade had received notice of a
Regulatory Halt. Under the Amendment, the Processor could presume that
any such trades occurred before the Regulatory Halt, thereby allowing
the Processor to continue publishing those trade reports to the
consolidated tape. The Commission believes that market observers could
derive benefits from continuing to learn about trades occurring just
before a Regulatory Halt.
    The Commission notes that it is also approving today a similar
proposal by the CTA Plan Participants to eliminate an ambiguity in that
Plan regarding how the Processor handles last-sale price reports during
a Regulatory Halt.\14\ As a result, both Plans will have uniform
provisions regarding how the Processor handles last-sale price reports
during race conditions. The Commission believes that approving these
two Plan amendments furthers the principle set forth in Section 11A of
the Act that ``[t]he linking of all markets for qualified securities
through communication and data processing facilities will foster
efficiency, enhance competition, increase the information available to
brokers, dealers, and investors, facilitate the offsetting of
investors' orders, and contribute to best execution of such orders''
\15\ by harmonizing across the entire national market system how last-
sale price reports for all NMS stocks are printed to the consolidated
tape during race conditions and by eliminating any ambiguity in the
duties of the Plan Processors in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88384 (March 13,
2020) (File No. SR-CTA-2019-02).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \16\
and the rules thereunder, that the Amendment to the Nasdaq/UTP Plan
(File No. S7-24-89) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05704 Filed 3-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P