[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27596-27597]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13739-002]

Braddock Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project; Notice of
Teleconference

    a. Date and Time of Teleconference: Friday, May 30, 2014, starting
at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time).
    b. FERC Contact: Andy Bernick,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    c. Purpose of Teleconference: Commission staff will discuss the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps') comments on the draft
environmental assessment for the proposed Braddock Locks and Dam
Hydroelectric Project (Braddock Project), which would be located on the
Monongahela River in the Borough of West Mifflin and the City of
Duquesne, Pennsylvania.
    d. Proposed Agenda: The Corps proposed the following discussion
topics: (1) Purpose and current operation of the existing water quality
(or ``environmental'') gate; (2) maintaining compliance with the Corps'
nondegradation water quality criteria; (3) flow availability for the
proposed Braddock Project; (4) the need for continuous water quality
and quantity monitoring; (5) cumulative impacts of stacked hydropower
development within the Corps' Lower Monongahela River navigation
system; and (6) the applicability of findings from FERC's

1988 ``Hydroelectric Development in the Upper Ohio River Basin'' final
environmental impact statement.
    e. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to participate by phone. If interested
in participating, please contact Andy Bernick at the above email
address by May 27, 2014, for information on the telephone number and
access code for the conference call.

    Dated: May 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11100 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	1/29/09

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Direct Final Rulemaking
Notice – West Virginia; Clean Air Interstate Rule - Budget Trading
Programs

FROM:	Marilyn Powers, Environmental Engineer   /s/ 1/29/09

Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Cristina Fernandez,   /s/  2/3/09

		Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch

A.  BACKGROUND

EPA promulgated new, more protective national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
in July 1997.  States were required to submit SIP revisions for the new
standards three years after promulgation.  In June 2004, EPA designated
the areas that are not attaining the new ozone standard, and in December
2004 designated the areas that are not attaining the new PM2.5 standard.
 However, EPA determined that transported emissions from upwind states
constitute a major fraction of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 problem in the
eastern portion of the United States.  Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean
Air Act requires that States eliminate transported emissions that are
significantly contributing to or interfering with maintenance of
nonattainment areas in downwind states.  As in the NOx SIP Call (63 FR
57356 dated October 27, 1998), eliminating significant contribution is
not designed to eliminate all contributions to transport, but rather to
balance the burden for achieving attainment between regional-scale and
local-scale control programs.

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was published by EPA on May 12,
2005 (70 FR 25162).   In this rule, EPA, based on air quality modeling
analyses and cost analyses, determined that 28 States, including West
Virginia, and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to
nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS for PM2.5 and
/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country.
As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to include control measures that reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) which is a precursor to PM2.5
formation, and/or NOX, which is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5
formation.  For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind
PM2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction
requirements for SO2 and annual State-wide emission reduction
requirements for NOx, from which State budgets are calculated.
Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour
ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction
requirements for NOX for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th).
These emission reductions were established using an approach based on
application of controls that EPA has determined to be highly cost
effective.   For CAIR, EPA has determined that highly cost effective
controls are available on electric generating units (EGUs).  This
approach for determining the state budgets was used in the NOx SIP Call,
a program that has proven to be a successful program for addressing
regional emissions.

Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by
participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by
adopting any other control measures.  CAIR lays out to subject States
what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to interstate
transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

  EPA made national findings, effective on May 25, 2005, that the States
had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D).  The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the
promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.  These findings
started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D).  Under
CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings
are made and must do so within two years unless a SIP revision
correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is
promulgated.

	On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by CAIR
in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule.  Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the
State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAIR.  The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the
EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season trading
programs, as appropriate.  The CAIR FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and
are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs.  The
integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these trading
programs will work together to create effectively a single trading
program for each regulated pollutant (SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season) in all States covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for
that pollutant.  The CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated
SIP revisions that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or
supplement certain CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for
allocating NOX allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions.

On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final rules
that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of states
subject to CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA’s final decisions on
reconsideration of five issues, without making any substantive changes
to the CAIR requirements.

EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and on
July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued its decision to vacate both CAIR and the associated CAIR
FIP in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir.
2008).  In response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an
order remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR
FIP.  North Carolina v. EPA, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 533481 (D.C. Cir.
Dec. 23, 2008). The Court directed EPA to "remedy the CAIR flaws"
consistent with its July 11, 2008 opinion, but declined to impose a
schedule on EPA for completing that action.  Therefore, CAIR and the
CAIR FIP are currently in effect in West Virgina.

B.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO2 and NOX and is to
be implemented in two phases.  The first phase of NOX reductions starts
in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO2
reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014.  The second phase
of reductions for both NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter.  CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1) requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's choosing
and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance
with the applicable State SO2 and NOX budgets.

The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules that
States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they
want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.  The model
rules apply to stationary fossil fuel-fired boilers or stationary fossil
fuel-fired turbines serving at any time, since the start-up of the
unit’s combustion chamber, a generator with a nameplate capacity of
more than 25 megawatt (MWe) producing electricity for sale.  They also
apply to units that qualify as cogeneration units that serve at any time
a generator with a 25 MWe capacity and supplying more than one-third of
the units potential electric output capacity or 219,000 MWe, whichever
is greater, to any utility power distribution system.

With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of
CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to
participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.  One exception is
for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow
non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs.
 The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their
NOX SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NOX ozone season trading
programs.

States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they
will use to meet the requirements of CAIR.  EPA anticipates that most
States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an option
that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR
cap-and-trade programs.  For such States, EPA has provided two
approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP revisions.
 States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model CAIR
cap-and-trade rules.  If approved, these SIP revisions will fully
replace the CAIR FIPs.  Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP
revisions.  These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs -
however, the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in
these abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in
conjunction with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the
CAIR FIPs (e.g., the NOX allowance allocation methodology).

A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations that
are substantively identical to the model rules or incorporate by
reference the model rules.  CAIR provides that States may only make
limited changes to the model rules if the States want to participate in
the EPA-administered trading programs.  A full SIP revision may change
the model rules only by altering their applicability and allowance
allocation provisions to:

Include  NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not EGUs under CAIR in
the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program;

Provide for State allocation of  NOX annual or ozone season allowances
using a methodology chosen by the State;

Provide for State allocation of  NOX annual allowances from the
compliance supplement pool (CSP) using the State’s choice of  allowed,
alternative methodologies; and

Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt individually into
the CAIR SO2, NOX annual, or NOX ozone season trading programs under the
opt-in provisions in the model rules.

An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs’ SO2, NOX annual,
or NOX ozone season emissions will replace the CAIR FIP for that State
for the respective EGU.

The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season budgets were developed from
historical heat input data for EGUs.  Using these data, EPA calculated
annual and ozone season regional heat input values, which were
multiplied by 0.15 lb/mmBtu, for Phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for Phase
2, to obtain regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and
thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NOX annual and ozone
season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat input data
adjusted by fuel factors.

	The CAIR State SO2 budgets were derived by discounting the tonnage of
emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations under the Acid Rain
Program under title IV of the CAA.  Under CAIR, each allowance allocated
in the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase 1 of CAIR (2010 through
2014) authorizes 0.5 ton of SO2 emissions in the CAIR trading program,
and each Acid Rain Program allowance allocated for the years in phase 2
of CAIR (2015 and thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO2 emissions in
the CAIR trading program.

C.  PRIOR WEST VIRGINIA CAIR SUBMITTALS:

	West Virginia adopted the model rule that was promulgated as part of
the May 12, 2005 final CAIR rulemaking and submitted its CAIR SIP
revision to EPA on June 1, 2006.  However, Part 96 was revised as part
of the FIP that was finalized on April 28, 2006.  The changes to Part 96
were necessary in order to allow sources in states having approved SIPs
to trade with sources in states that are under the FIP.  These changes
must be included in a state’s CAIR rules.  Because West Virginia’s
June 1, 2006 submittal did not include the revisions made on April 28,
2006, the submittal did not fully meet the requirements of CAIR.  On
June 8, 2007, West Virginia requested that certain portions of its June
1, 2006 submittal be considered as also being submitted for purposes of
an abbreviated SIP.   Specifically, the State requested that Sections 40
through 42 of both state rules 45CSR39 (NOx annual trading program) and
45CSR40 (NOx ozone season trading program) replace the corresponding FIP
provisions in Subpart EE and EEEE of Part 97 in accordance with 40 CFR
51.123(p) and 51.123(ee).  These provisions set forth the NOx budget,
timing, and allowance allocation methodology for West Virginia’s
annual and ozone season trading programs.  West Virginia’s abbreviated
SIP submittal did not address any of the other three areas of
flexibility available to States under CAIR.  EPA approved West
Virginia’s abbreviated SIP on December 18, 2007 (72 FR 71576).

D.  EVALUATION OF STATE’S (FULL CAIR) SUBMITTAL:

On April 22, 2008, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of three fully
adopted legislative rules which address the requirements of CAIR.  These
rules are 45CSR39 – Control of Annual Nitrogen Oxides Emissions,
45CSR40 – Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, and
45CSR41 – Control of Annual Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.  West Virginia
is submitting these rules as a SIP revision to replace its currently
approved abbreviated SIP and to remove the CAIR FIP.

West Virginia’s submittal of April 22, 2008 requests approval of its
full CAIR SIP to replace the FIP.  The SIP revision is comprised of a
cap and trade program for NOx annual, NOx ozone season, and SO2 annual
emissions that substantively mirror EPA’s model rule with changes as
allowed under CAIR.  The following discusses West Virginia’s choices
regarding the four areas of flexibility:

Inclusion of NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not EGUs under CAIR
in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program

The NOx SIP Call trading program will not be administered by EPA after
2008, therefore States have the choice of either bringing in their
non-EGUs that were subject to the NOx SIP Call into their CAIR trading
program or submitting a demonstration that the non-EGU reduction
obligations are being met in some other way.

West Virginia has chosen to bring its non-EGUs into its CAIR NOx ozone
season trading program.  In order to do so, West Virginia has expanded
its regulation 45CSR40 to cover all the non-EGUs that would otherwise be
covered by its NOx SIP Call trading program under 45CSR1.

First, the applicability provisions in Section 4 of 45CSR40 was amended
to include applicability to non-EGUs under 45CSR1 in order to include in
the CAIR NOx ozone season trading program all units required to be in
the West Virginia’s NOx SIP Call trading program that are not already
included under 45CSR40.

Also, certain definitions were modified or amended to make clear the
distinctions between applicability in the two programs.  For example,
the definitions for “fossil fuel fired” and “cogeneration unit”
differ between CAIR and the NOx SIP Call, therefore West Virginia has
preserved and included these particular definitions that were part of
45CSR1 to apply expressly to the non-EGUs for determining applicability
for units that are not EGUs as defined in CAIR.

Similarly, the “commence commercial operation” definition in 45CSR40
has been amended to address the fact that monitoring system
certification deadlines are based on commencement of commercial
operation and, because non-EGUs may not generate electricity, may never
"commence commercial operation," as currently defined in the CAIR NOx
ozone season trading rule.

Along with these definitions, the portion of the NOx SIP Call trading
budget attributed to non-EGUs (2,184 tons) has been added to West
Virginia’s CAIR NOx ozone season trading budget in Section 40.1.
Non-EGU allocation provisions have been added to Section 42.2.c and
42.2.d, a separate new unit set-aside for non-EGUs is established in
Section 42.3.a.2, and new Section 43 added that applies to West
Virginia’s single NOx SIP Call opt in unit.

With these language changes and additions, West Virginia’s CAIR NOx
ozone season trading program under 45CSR40 will cover all non-EGUs that
were included in the NOx SIP Call trading program under West Virginia
regulation 45CSR1.  These sources are comprised of large industrial
boilers and combustion turbines having a maximum heat input greater than
250 mmBtu/hr that do not serve a generator producing electricity for
sale to the electric grid, as well as one unit that chose to participate
in the NOx Budget Trading program under the State’s opt-in provisions.

Provide for State allocation of  NOX annual and/or ozone season
allowances using a methodology chosen by the State

West Virginia’s NOx Annual (45CSR39) and NOx Ozone Season (45CSR40)
CAIR rules pertaining to allocation methodology, budget, timing, and
allocations that are applicable to EGUs are set forth in Sections
45-39-40, 45-39-41, and 45-39-42 of the NOx Annual rule, and Sections
45-40-40, 45-40-41, and 45-40-42 of the NOx Ozone Season rule.  These
provisions are substantively identical to those approved in the
abbreviated SIP, with the exception of the provision related to
allowances to be recorded in the event the State does not submit its
allocations in a timely manner.  In this situation, Part 96 requires
that the number of allocations from the preceding year be recorded for
the current year for each source.  Allocations to sources in West
Virginia will only be recorded upon the State’s submission of
allowances to EPA.

3.  Provide for State allocation of  NOX annual allowances from the
compliance supplement pool (CSP) using the State’s choice of  allowed,
alternative methodologies

	The CSP is a pool of NOx annual allowances for each State that may be
distributed to sources for early reductions achieved in 2007 and 2008,
or based on a demonstration of need to extend the compliance deadline
beyond 2009 because of unforeseen circumstances in complying that create
issues of reliability of electricity supply in 2009.

	West Virginia has chosen to allocate the NOx annual allowances from the
compliance supplement pool.  West Virginia’s compliance supplement
pool is comprised of 4,898 allowances.  West Virginia has chosen to
distribute CSP allowances for any CAIR NOx Annual unit in the State
whose average annual NOx emission rate for 2007 or 2008 is less than
0.25 lb/mmBtu and, whose NOx averaging plan (if the unit is included in
an Acid Rain Program NOx averaging plan under 40 CFR §76.11) for that
year has an actual weighted average NOx emission rate that is equal to
or less than the actual weighted average NOx emission rate for the year
before the unit achieves NOx emission reductions in 2007 or 2008.

.

4.  Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt individually
into the CAIR SO2, NOX annual, or NOX ozone season trading programs
under the opt-in provisions in the model rules.

	West Virginia has chosen not to allow individual sources to opt-in to
the NOx annual, NOx ozone season or the SO2 annual trading program.

Finally, West Virginia has chosen to include provisions addressing its
NOx SIP Call Phase II non-trading sources into a separate section of 45
CSR 40 (CAIR NOx ozone season trading program). This is an
administrative action by West Virginia.  These sources continue to have
the same requirements as set forth in 45 CSR 26, and do not affect the
State’s CAIR requirements.  West Virginia’s NOx SIP Call Phase II
reductions were previously approved into the West Virginia SIP on
September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56881), therefore no action on these
provisions is necessary.

E.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

West Virginia has adopted rules for NOx annual, NOx ozone season, and
SO2 annual trading programs that implement the requirements of CAIR.
For the most part, these rules are substantively identical to the Part
96 model rules.  They include modifications to the model rules that are
consistent with the limited changes allowed by CAIR in order for a State
to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR trading program. The SIP
revision, which meets the requirements of CAIR and strengthens the West
Virginia SIP, is recommended for approval.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24191-24192]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC13-92-000.
    Applicants: Alta Wind X, LLC, Alta Wind XI, LLC, Alta Windpower
Development, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Alta Wind
X, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2643-002.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2013--04-15 Compliance Filing re RA Deliverability for
Distributed Generation to be effective 11/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1007-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 04-16-2013 SA 2507 ITC-Interstate E&P Errata to be
effective 3/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1285-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: WPA under Comprehensive Agreement between PG&E and DWR
to be effective 4/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1286-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 04-15-2013 SA 2455 DEGS Wind-METC Termination to be
effective 6/14/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1287-000.
    Applicants: Lakeside Beaver Falls LLC.
    Description: Baseline new to be effective 4/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1287-001; ER13-1288-001; ER11-4634-001.
    Applicants: Lakeside Beaver Falls LLC, Lakeside Syracuse LLC,
Hazleton Generation LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Lakeside
Beaver Falls LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1288-000.
    Applicants: Lakeside Syracuse LLC.
    Description: Baseline new to be effective 4/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1289-000.
    Applicants: Lakeside Syracuse LLC.
    Description: Cancellation to be effective 4/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1290-000.
    Applicants: Lakeside Beaver Falls LLC.
    Description: Cancellation to be effective 4/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1291-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc. submits Request for
Additional Cost Recovery under Section III.A.15, Appendix A to the ISO
New England Inc. Tariff.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1292-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing to Order No. 764 to be effective 6/
16/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1293-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 04-16-2013 SA 2517 DTE Electric-ITC E&P to be
effective 4/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1294-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: 1154R8 Associated Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA
to be effective 3/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1295-000.
    Applicants: WestConnect.
    Description: WestConnect Point-to-Point Regional Transmission
Service Participation Agreement to be effective 7/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1296-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: WestConnect Regional Point-to-Point Transmission
Service Tariff to be effective 7/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1297-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Cancellation of APS Rate Schedule No. 257--Foothills
Solar E&P Agreement to be effective 6/14/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1298-000.
    Applicants: Mega Energy Holdings LLC.
    Description: Baseline New to be effective 5/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1299-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: BPA AC Intertie O&M Agreement to be effective 9/22/
2010.
    Filed Date: 4/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130416-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/13.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA09-22-005.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Annual Compliance Report Regarding Penalties for
Unreserved Use of Florida Power & Light Company.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: OA13-4-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits Informational Filing Regarding Unreserved Use and Late Study
Penalties in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
    Filed Date: 4/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20130415-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 16, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09644 Filed 4-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 48278]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15762]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-422, OMB Control No. 3235-0471]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 15c1-5

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

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c1-5 (17 CFR 240.15c1-
5) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 15c1-5 states that any broker-dealer controlled by,
controlling, or under common control with the issuer of a security that
the broker-dealer is trying to sell to or buy from a customer must give
the customer written notification disclosing the control relationship
at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates
that 175 respondents provide notifications annually under Rule 15c1-5
and that each respondent would spend approximately 10 hours per year
complying with the requirements of the rule for a total burden of
approximately 1,750 hours per year. There is no retention period
requirement under Rule 15c1-5. This Rule does not involve the
collection of confidential information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
September 25, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 20, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15762 Filed 7-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1795-1799]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00274]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0418, FRL-9905-30-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve the May 9, 2013, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal from Idaho to revise the SIP to update the incorporation by
reference of Federal air quality regulations into the SIP and make
minor edits and clarifications. The EPA is proposing to grant limited
approval, as SIP strengthening, to a portion of the submittal that
incorporates by reference updates to the Federal nonattainment new
source review (nonattainment NSR) requirements that have been recently
remanded to the EPA by a court. In addition, the EPA is proposing to
partially disapprove Idaho's incorporation by reference of two
provisions of the Federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
permitting rules that have been recently vacated in a separate decision
by a court. Finally, we are proposing to take no action on Idaho's
incorporation by reference of another provision of the Federal PSD
permitting rules that has been the subject of a court action. Upon
final action, the Idaho SIP would incorporate by reference certain
Federal regulations as of July 1, 2012.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0418, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT--107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0418. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle WA, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of State Submittal
    A. Summary of Submittal
    1. PM2.5 PSD IBR Update
    2. 2011 Federal Rule IBR Update
    3. Housekeeping Revisions
    4. 2012 Federal Rule IBR Update
    B. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain
Federal Rules
    1. PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR Provisions
    2. PM2.5 PSD Provisions
    3. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions From Biogenic Sources
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies the general
requirements for states to submit SIPs to attain and maintain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the EPA's actions
regarding approval of those SIPs. On May 9, 2013, the State of Idaho
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to account for regulatory changes
adopted by Idaho on several different dates. Idaho incorporates by
reference (IBR) various portions of Federal regulations codified in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) into the Rules for the

Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01). Idaho then submits
parts of IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval into the Federally-
approved Idaho SIP (generally those provisions that relate to the
criteria pollutants regulated under section 110 of the CAA for which
the EPA has promulgated NAAQS or other specific requirements of section
110). To ensure that its rules remain consistent with the EPA
requirements, Idaho generally updates the IBR citations in IDAPA
58.01.01 on an annual basis and submits a SIP revision to reflect any
changes made to the Federal regulations during that year. Idaho's
current SIP includes the approved incorporation by reference of
specific Federal regulations, revised as of July 1, 2010, at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> ``Incorporation by Reference.''

II. Analysis of State Submittal

A. Summary of Submittal

    On May 9, 2013, Idaho submitted several state dockets (rulemakings)
for approval by the EPA. We note that the dockets also include
revisions to Idaho's regulations relating to its title V operating
permits program, hazardous air pollutants (referred to as ``toxic air
pollutants'' in Idaho regulations), and other air quality-related
requirements that do not implement section 110 of the CAA. Idaho
submitted the revisions to these regulations for information purposes
only, in order to provide a complete record of the rule revisions in
each of the identified dockets. In the cover letter to the May 9, 2013,
submittal Idaho specifically stated that the identified provisions were
not being submitted to update Idaho's SIP. Below, we describe the rule
changes submitted to the EPA for approval and provide our analysis of
the revisions.
1. PM2.5 PSD IBR Update
    Docket 58-0101-1101 ``PM2.5 PSD IBR'' revises IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.03 ``Documents Incorporated by Reference'' to add the EPA
final rule for Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments,
Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration
(2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule) (October 20, 2010, 75
FR 64864) codified at 40 CFR parts 51 and 52. Idaho incorporated these
Federal requirements by reference separately from its annual IBR update
because the EPA's final rule became effective after the State's annual
IBR update in 2010, but before its annual IBR update in 2011. Although
Idaho requested approval of this docket, it has been superseded by the
annual IBR updates for 2011 and 2012, described below. Therefore, we
are acting on only the most recently adopted and submitted version of
Idaho's regulations (namely, the 2012 Federal Rule IBR Update). Further
action on this docket is not necessary because this version of the
regulations is no longer in effect.
2. 2011 Federal Rule IBR Update
    Docket 58-0101-1103 ``2011 Federal Rule IBR'' revises IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.03 ``Documents Incorporated by Reference'' to update the
citation dates for specific provisions incorporated by reference into
the Idaho SIP as of July 1, 2011. Although Idaho requested approval of
this docket, it has been superseded by the annual IBR update for 2012,
described below. Therefore, we are acting on only the most recently
adopted and submitted version of Idaho's regulations (namely, the 2012
Federal Rule IBR Update). Further action on this docket is not
necessary because this version of the regulations is no longer in
effect.
3. Housekeeping Revisions
    Docket 58-0101-1201 ``Housekeeping Revisions'' revises IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> ``General Definitions'' to clarify the definition of
``Modification'' with respect to the use of an alternative fuel or raw
material, if the stationary source is specifically designed to
accommodate such fuel or raw material before January 6, 1975 and use of
such fuel or raw material is not specifically prohibited in a permit.
The EPA is proposing to approve this revision because it has been
clarified by adding the specific date of January 6, 1975, and aligns
with the Federal definition of ``major modification'' at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(2)(i).
    Docket 58-0101-1201 also revises the definition of ``Significant''
at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> ``General Definitions'' to include
PM2.5. Specifically, the revision defines a net emissions
increase or the potential of a source to emit PM2.5 as
``significant'' if the rate of emissions would equal or exceed 10 tons
per year of direct PM2.5 emissions; or, with respect to
specific precursors to PM2.5, 40 tons per year of sulfur
dioxide emissions, or 40 tons per year of nitrogen oxides emissions.
The EPA is proposing to approve this revised definition because it is
the same as the Federal definition of significant at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i).
    Docket 58-0101-1201 also revises the definition of ``Significant
Contribution'' in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> ``General Definitions'' to include
an increase in ambient concentrations of PM2.5 which would
exceed 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, annual average, and 1.2
micrograms per cubic meter, twenty-four hour average. The EPA is
proposing to approve this revision because it adopts the Federal
``significant impact levels'' for PM2.5 as set forth in 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2) and, as a definition, has a legal affect only as
otherwise provided in regulations. As discussed in Section II.B.2
below, certain Federal regulations related to significant impact levels
were recently vacated by a court. However, 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) was not
vacated and remains in effect. Please see Section II.B.2 for a detailed
discussion.
    It is important to note that since we most recently approved
revisions to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> ``General Definitions,'' new
definitions have been added at paragraphs (49), (50), (51), (66), (67),
(114), and (116). As a result, the paragraphs in this section have been
renumbered. We are not at this time acting on these new definitions
because they were not part of the submittal, but we are proposing to
approve the renumbering of the section to reflect the current paragraph
numbers for ``Modification'' (68), ``Significant'' (106), and
``Significant Contribution'' (107), and for all previously approved
definitions in this section.
    The docket also makes minor changes to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> ``General
Exemption Criteria for Permit to Construct Exemptions'' and IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> ``Category II Exemptions'' to clarify the applicability of
these provisions. The revision to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> is approvable
because it makes clear that an exemption under IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> may
be used by Category I sources if they meet the criteria in both IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> and 223. Similarly, an exemption under IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
may be used by Category II sources if they meet the criteria in both
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> and 223. The revision to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
``Category II Exemptions'' is approvable because it clarifies the
additional criteria that a pilot plant in subparagraph (01)(e) must
meet in order to satisfy the exemption criteria. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the submitted revisions to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> and
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.
    Finally, this docket revises IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>2 ``Emissions
Standards for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants Subject to 40 CFR
60 Subpart OOO'' and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>4 ``Permit Requirements'' as they
relate to nonmetallic mineral processing plant. Idaho submitted a
previous version of IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>2 and <IP_ADDRESS>4 to the EPA as a
SIP revision, but the EPA has not yet taken action on that SIP
revision. See 75 FR 72719 (November

26, 2010). The EPA intends to take action on both submitted revisions
to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>2 and <IP_ADDRESS>4 in a separate rulemaking.
4. 2012 Federal Rule IBR Update
    Docket 58-0101-1203 ``2012 Federal Rule IBR Update'' revises IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> ``Incorporations by Reference'' in several ways. First,
the revision updates to July 1, 2012 the citation dates of specific
provisions incorporated by reference in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03
``Documents Incorporated by Reference.'' Second, the revision repeals
certain provisions that are no longer necessary to incorporate by
reference. Finally, the revision adds the incorporation by reference of
40 CFR part 70 (State Operating Programs) and renumbers the
subparagraphs in the rule.
    Subparagraph (a) of IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03 incorporates by reference
the Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51, with the exception of certain
visibility-related provisions, revised as of July 1, 2012. Idaho's
update to the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 51 includes
nonattainment NSR requirements at 40 CFR 51.165. For the reasons
discussed in Section II.B.1 below, the EPA is proposing to grant
limited approval, as SIP strengthening, to the portion of Idaho's
submittal that incorporates by reference updates to the Federal
nonattainment NSR requirements at 40 CFR 51.165.
    Subparagraphs (b) through (e) and (o) as renumbered, incorporate by
reference the following provisions revised as of July 1, 2012: (b)
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR
part 50; (c) Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR
part 52, including the Federal PSD permitting rules at 40 CFR 52.21;
(d) Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR
part 53; (e) Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58; and (o)
Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 93, Subpart A, Sections 93.100
through 93.129, although certain subsections are specifically excluded
from the State's incorporation by reference. These provisions relate to
the criteria pollutants regulated under section 110 of title I of the
CAA or other specific requirements of section 110 and, with the
exceptions discussed in Section II.B.2 below, make the Idaho SIP
consistent with Federal law. The EPA is proposing to approve the
revisions to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03 (b) through (e) and (o) as
renumbered, with the following exceptions. We are proposing to
disapprove Idaho's incorporation by reference of two provisions of the
Federal PSD permitting rules at 40 CFR 52.21 revised by the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule (October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864).
Provisions of this rule were recently vacated by a court, as discussed
in Section II.B.2 below. We are also proposing to take no action on
Idaho's incorporation by reference of a provision of 40 CFR 52.21
revised by the Biogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Deferral Rule
that is currently the subject of a judicial challenge, as described in
Section II.B.3 below (July 20, 2011, 76 FR 43490).
    This docket also repealed subparagraphs (o), (p), and (q) (prior to
renumbering) of IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03. Subparagraph (o) incorporated by
reference the final rule for Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Sulfur Dioxide, now codified at 40 CFR part 50, 40 CFR
part 53, and 40 CFR part 58. Subparagraph (p) incorporated by reference
the final rule for Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, now codified at 40 CFR part 51, 40 CFR
part 52, and 40 CFR part 70. Subparagraph (q) incorporated by reference
the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule, now codified at 40
CFR part 51 and 40 CFR part 52. Idaho's annual IBR update has since
captured the CFR changes made by these three Federal rules, and Idaho
has therefore repealed these subparagraphs. We are proposing to approve
the repeal of IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03 subparagraphs (o), (p), and (q)
(prior to renumbering).
    Subparagraphs (f) through (m) of IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03 as
renumbered, incorporate by reference the following provisions as of
July 1, 2012: (f) Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,
40 CFR part 60; (g) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, 40 CFR part 61; (h) National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories, 40 CFR part 63; (i)
Compliance Assurance Monitoring, 40 CFR part 64; (j) State Operating
Permit Programs, 40 CFR part 70; (k) Permits, 40 CFR part 72; (l)
Sulfur Dioxide Allowance System, 40 CFR part 73; and (m) Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone, 40 CFR part 82. Consistent with past approvals of
the Idaho SIP, we are proposing to not approve the portion of the May
9, 2013, submittal that revises IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03(f) through (m) as
renumbered, because these provisions implement other CAA requirements
that are not requirements of a SIP under section 110 of the CAA.

B. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain Federal
Rules

1. PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR Provisions
    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of
Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706 F.3d
428 (DC Cir.), issued a decision that remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008
rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Relevant here, the
EPA's 2008 implementation rule addressed by the Court decision,
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule),\1\ promulgated NSR requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). The
Court concluded that the EPA had improperly based the implementation
rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely upon the requirements
of part D, subpart 1 of the CAA, and had failed to address the
requirements of part D, subpart 4, which establishes additional
provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas. The Court
ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4
consistent with this opinion.'' Id. at 437. As a result of the Court's
decision, the EPA withdrew its guidance for implementing the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS\2\ because the guidance was based largely on the
remanded rule promulgated to implement the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.\3\ The EPA is currently engaged in rulemaking to address the
remand from the Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008).
    \2\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Implementation Guidance for
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (Mar. 2, 2012).
    \3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Withdrawal of
Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Jun. 6,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the interim, however, states and the EPA still need to proceed
with implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and
effective fashion in order to meet statutory obligations under the CAA
and to assure the protection of public health intended by those NAAQS.
In light of the Court's remand of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule,
the EPA is not prepared at this time to grant full approval to Idaho's
incorporation by reference into the Idaho SIP of the Federal
nonattainment NSR requirements at 40 CFR 51.165, but instead proposes
to grant limited

approval, as SIP strengthening, of this aspect of Idaho's submittal.
    The EPA is in the process of evaluating the requirements of subpart
4 as they pertain to nonattainment NSR. In particular, subpart 4
includes section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors (and hence under the
Court decision, PM2.5 precursors) ``except where the
Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in
the area.'' The evaluation of which precursors need to be controlled to
achieve the standard in a particular area is typically conducted in the
context of the State's preparing and the EPA's reviewing of an area's
attainment plan SIP. In this case, there is only one designated
PM2.5 nonattainment area in Idaho, the portion of Franklin
County which is part of the cross border Logan, Utah-Idaho
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Idaho
submitted an attainment plan for this area in Idaho (referred to here
as ``Franklin County'') on December 14, 2012. On December 26, 2013, the
EPA proposed limited approval of the road sanding and woodstove control
measures in this plan (78 FR 78315).
    In light of the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA, and the need to
evaluate Idaho's submittal for Franklin County in conjunction with the
SIP submittal for the Utah portion of the Logan Utah-Idaho
nonattainment area, the EPA is not proposing to make a determination
regarding whether Idaho's December 2012 SIP submittal for Franklin
County satisfies all of the statutory nonattainment planning
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For similar reasons,
and because the EPA is not evaluating in this action Idaho's analysis
as to which precursors need to be controlled in the Idaho portion of
the Logan Utah-Idaho nonattainment area, the EPA cannot approve as
fully complying with the CAA a nonattainment NSR SIP that may address
only a subset of the scientific precursors recognized by the EPA. On
the other hand, while we have not yet determined if Idaho's submittal
for Franklin County contains all of the elements necessary to satisfy
the CAA requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas when
evaluated under subpart 4, the revisions proposed in this action to 40
CFR 51.165 (including without limitation the regulation of
PM10 and PM2.5 condensable emissions) represent a
strengthening of the currently approved Idaho SIP. Therefore, the EPA
is proposing to grant limited approval of the nonattainment NSR
provisions in Idaho's 2012 IBR Update.
    Because the EPA has not yet proposed revisions to the nonattainment
NSR permitting requirements in response to the remand, the EPA is not
evaluating at this time whether Idaho's submittal for Franklin County
will require additional revisions to satisfy the subpart 4
requirements. Once the EPA repromulgates the Federal PM2.5
regulations with respect to nonattainment NSR permitting in response to
the NRDC v. EPA remand, the EPA will consider whether a limited
disapproval should also be finalized.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As discussed above, Idaho's submittal also includes
revisions to the Idaho SIP to update the incorporation by reference
of the Federal PSD permitting rule at 40 CFR 52.21. Because the
requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the
EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and
unclassifiable areas (including PSD permitting rules) to be affected
by the court's opinion in NRDC v. EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. PM2.5 PSD Provisions
    As discussed above in Section II.A.4, IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03(c)
incorporates by reference the Federal PSD permitting rules at 40 CFR
52.21. The current Idaho SIP incorporates 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as
of July 1, 2010. Docket Number 58-0101-1203 updates the incorporation
by reference date of the PSD permitting rules to July 1, 2012, and thus
includes revisions to 40 CFR 52.21(i) (relating to the significant
monitoring concentration (SMC)) and 40 CFR 52.21(k) (relating to the
significant impact level (SIL)) that added a SMC and SIL for
PM2.5 as part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5
Implementation Rule.
    On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued,
with respect to the SMC, a judgment that, inter alia, vacated the
provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC to the Federal regulations
at 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). In its decision, the Court
held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt
permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2)
of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be
included in all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the
PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a state's PSD
program, where a state PSD program contains such a provision and allows
issuance of new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5
monitoring data, such application of the vacated SMC would be
inconsistent with the Court's opinion and the requirements of section
165(e)(2) of the CAA.
    At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded to the
EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40
CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The EPA requested this
vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA
regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5 because the wording
of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR
52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs
should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the
preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these
provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not
vacated and remains in effect. We also note that the Court's decision
does not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as
part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule. The EPA
recently amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM2.5
SILs and SMC provisions from the PSD regulations (December 9, 2013, 78
FR 73698). The EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking in the future
regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will address the Court's
remand. In the meantime, the EPA is advising states to begin
preparations to remove the vacated provisions from state PSD
regulations.
    In response to the vacatur of the EPA regulations as they relate to
the PM2.5 SMC and the PM2.5 SILs, Idaho submitted
a letter to the EPA, dated October 18, 2013, clarifying that it will
not apply either the PM2.5 SMC provisions at 40 CFR
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) or the PM2.5 SIL provisions at 40 CFR
52.21(k)(2) in Idaho's implementation of the PSD program. In addition,
the October 18, 2013 letter states that Idaho intends to remove the
vacated provisions to ensure consistency with Federal law as soon as
practicable. Therefore, we are proposing to partially disapprove the
Idaho submittal with respect to the incorporation by reference at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.03(c) of the vacated provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 (namely,
40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)).
3. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions From Biogenic Sources
    In 2011, the EPA revised the definition of ``subject to
regulation'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a) to defer for three years
(until July 21, 2014) PSD permitting requirements to CO2
emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources
(Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other
Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Title V Programs; Final Rule

(July 20, 2011, 76 FR 43490) (Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule).
Idaho's update to incorporate by reference the EPA's PSD permitting
rules as of July 1, 2012, includes this revision to 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
No. 11-1101 (D.C. Cir. July 12, 2013), vacated the Biogenic
CO2 Deferral Rule. At this time, the Court has not issued
the mandate in this case and the vacatur is therefore not in effect. In
light of this situation, we are proposing to take no action on Idaho's
incorporation by reference of the revision to 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a) at this time.
    The EPA is proposing to approve all other aspects of Idaho's
incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2012 in IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.03(c), other than those discussed in Sections II.B.2 and
II.B.3 of this proposal.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to partially approve the May 9, 2013,
submittal from Idaho to update the incorporation by reference of
Federal air quality regulations into the SIP and make minor edits and
clarifications. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the revisions
to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03 ``Incorporations by Reference,'' except as
noted below; IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> ``General Definitions;'' IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> ``General Exemption Criteria for Permit to Construct
Exemptions;'' and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> ``Category II Exemption.'' The EPA
is proposing to grant limited approval, as SIP strengthening, to a
portion of the submittal that incorporates by reference updates to the
Federal nonattainment NSR requirements at 40 CFR 51.165 that have been
recently remanded to the EPA by a court.
    We are proposing to partially disapprove the revision to IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.03(c) as it relates to the incorporation by reference of
specific vacated provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 (namely, 40 CFR
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)). We are proposing to take no
action on the revision to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03(c) as it relates to the
incorporation by reference of the vacated revision to 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). Upon final action, the Idaho SIP would incorporate
by reference specific Federal regulations as of July 1, 2012.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: December 30, 2013.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-00274 Filed 1-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41364-41368]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14933]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78106; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting New NYSE MKT
Rules 2090--Equities (Know Your Customer) and 2111--Equities
(Suitability) That Are Substantially Similar to FINRA Rules 2090 (Know
Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability), Deleting Current NYSE MKT Rule
405--Equities (Diligence as to Accounts), and Making Other Conforming
Changes

June 20, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\
notice is hereby given that on June 9, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``Exchange''
or ``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes adopting new rule text that is substantially
similar to Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) of
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), (2)
deleting current Rule 405--Equities (Diligence as to Accounts) (``Rule
405''), and (3) making other conforming changes. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to harmonize with certain
FINRA rules. Specifically, the Exchange proposes (1) adopting new rule
text that is substantially similar to FINRA Rules 2090 and 2111; (2)
deleting Rule 405; \4\ and (3) making other conforming changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ References to rules are to NYSE MKT rules unless otherwise
indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In 2007, FINRA and the Exchange's affiliate the New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') \5\ entered into an

agreement (the ``Agreement'') pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act to
reduce regulatory duplication by allocating to FINRA certain regulatory
responsibilities for NYSE rules and rule interpretations (``FINRA
Incorporated NYSE Rules'').\6\ NYSE MKT became a party to the Agreement
effective December 15, 2008.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE Regulation, Inc., a former not-for-profit subsidiary of
the NYSE, was also a party to the Agreement by virtue of the fact
that it performed regulatory functions for the NYSE pursuant to a
delegation agreement. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382
(February 27, 2006), 71 FR 11251, 11264-65 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-
2005-77) (approving delegation agreement). NYSE Regulation also
performed regulatory services for the Exchange pursuant to an
intercompany Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA'') that gave the
Exchange the contractual right to review NYSE Regulation's
performance. The delegation agreement and related RSA terminated on
February 16, 2016, and NYSE Regulation has ceased providing
regulatory services to the Exchange, which has re-integrated its
regulatory functions.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (order approving the Agreement);
56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-
054) (order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE Rules as
``Common Rules''). Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement sets forth
procedures regarding proposed changes by FINRA or the Exchange to
the substance of any of the Common Rules.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (order approving the Agreement);
56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-
054) (order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE Rules as
``Common Rules''); 60409 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39353 (August 6,
2009) (order approving the amended and restated Agreement, adding
NYSE MKT LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement sets forth
procedures regarding proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE or NYSE MKT to
the substance of any of the Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve firms that
are members of the Exchange, the NYSE and FINRA of conflicting or
unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA has been reviewing and amending
the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in order to create a
consolidated FINRA rulebook.\8\ As part of the rule consolidation
process, in 2010, FINRA harmonized NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE
Rules and interpretations concerning know your customer and
suitability.\9\ In its filing, FINRA (1) adopted FINRA Rules 2090 (Know
Your Customer) and 2090 (Suitability), and (2) deleted NASD Rule 2310
(Recommendations to Customers (Suitability)) and NYSE Rule 405
(Diligence as to Accounts) as well as NYSE Rule Interpretations 405/01
through/04. The rule change was effective July 9, 2012.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FINRA's rulebook currently has three sets of rules: (1) NASD
Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA
Rules. The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''), while
the consolidated FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members. For more
information about the FINRA rulebook consolidation process, see
FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63325 ((November 17,
2010), 75 FR 71479 (November 23, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-039) (``FINRA
Know Your Customer and Suitability Approval'').
    \10\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 11-25 (May 2011). The original
effective date was October 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange does not have separate rules for know your
customer and suitability. Rather, Rule 405, based on NYSE Rule 405,\11\
requires every member organization, through a principal executive or a
person or persons designated under the provisions of Rule 3110(a), to
take certain actions relative to customers and customer accounts.
First, Rule 405(1) requires member organizations to use ``due
diligence'' to learn the ``essential facts relative to every customer,
every order, every cash or margin account accepted or carried by such
organization and every person holding power of attorney over any
account accepted or carried by such organization.'' Second, Rule 405(2)
requires member organizations to supervise diligently all accounts
handled by registered representatives. Finally, Rule 405(3) requires
persons designated by the member to be informed of the essential facts
relative to the customer and to the nature of the proposed account
prior to approving the opening of the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The NYSE recently made a similar filing to delete Rule 405
and its related interpretations and adopt new NYSE Rules 2090 and
2111 based on FINRA Rules 2090 and 2111. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 77838 (May 16, 2016), 81 FR 31974 (May 20, 2016) (SR-
NYSE-2016-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Supplementary Material .10 of Rule 405 generally discusses the
requirements that firms know their customers and imposes specific
knowledge and due diligence requirements in connection with the
authority of third parties to act on behalf of customers that are legal
entities, including margin accounts carried by a member organization
for a non-member corporation, cash accounts carried for a non-member
corporation, and agency accounts carried by a member organization.\12\
Supplementary Material .20 of Rule 405 refers to the requirements of
Rule 4311 concerning the permitted allocation of responsibilities
between introducing and carrying organizations. Supplementary Material
.30 cross references to Rule 414 (Index and Currency Warrants).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As discussed below, the Exchange believes that
Supplementary Material .10 of Rule 405--Equities is redundant of
proposed Rule 2090 and proposed Supplementary Material .01 thereof
that would require firms to know the essential facts concerning
every customer.
    \13\ NYSE Rule 414 provides that Rule 723 (Suitability) applies
to recommendations in currency warrants, currency index warrants and
stock index warrants. When the Exchange adopted the NYSE's rules in
2008, however, NYSE Rule 414 was not adopted. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58265 (July 30, 2008), 73 FR 46075, 46078
(August 7, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63). The Exchange believes that the
other cross references in Rule 405 are either no longer necessary or
moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 405 as either
duplicative of, or not aligned with, the proposed know your customer
and suitability requirements discussed below, and adopt the text of
FINRA Rules 2090 and 2111.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The technical and conforming changes are that the Exchange
would (1) substitute the term ``member organization'' for ``member''
(see note 18, infra), (2) substitute the term ``Exchange'' for
``FINRA,'' (3) change certain cross-references to FINRA rules to
cross-references to Exchange rules, and (4) add references to
proposed Rules 2090--Equities and 2111--Equities in Rule 3170 (Tape
Recording of Registered Persons by Certain Firms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 2090--Equities (Know Your Customer)
    Like FINRA Rule 2090, proposed Rule 2090--Equities (``Rule 2090'')
would encompass the ``main ethical standard'' of Rule 405(1).\15\ The
proposed rule would require every ``member organization through a
principal executive or a person or persons designated under the
provisions of Rule 3110(a)'' \16\ to use ``reasonable diligence,'' with
regard to the opening and maintenance of every account, in order to
know and retain the essential facts concerning every customer. The
proposed supplementary material would define ``essential facts'' as
those ``required to (a) effectively service the customer's account, (b)
act in accordance with any special handling instructions for the
account, (c) understand the authority of each person acting on behalf
of the customer, and (d) comply with applicable laws, regulations, and
rules.'' \17\ The proposed rule would be identical to FINRA Rule 2090
except that the proposed rule would use the term ``member
organization'' rather than ``member,'' which has different meanings
under FINRA and Exchange rules.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FINRA Know Your Customer and Suitability Approval, 75 FR at
71480.
    \16\ This is the current formulation in Rule 405, which the
Exchange proposes to retain.
    \17\ See Proposed Rule 2090.01. Like FINRA, the Exchange does
not propose to incorporate the requirement in NYSE Rule 405(1) to
learn the essential facts relative to ``every order.'' The Exchange
agrees with FINRA that the application of existing order-handling
rules renders this formulation unnecessary. See FINRA Know Your
Customer and Suitability Approval, 75 FR at 71480. Further, the
Exchange's proposed suitability rule would also require member
organizations and persons associated with a member organization to
use reasonable diligence to understand the securities and strategies
they recommend, further obviating the need for this language. See
id.
    \18\ Under FINRA Rules, a ``member'' means individual,
partnership, corporation or other legal entity admitted to
membership in FINRA under Articles III and IV of the FINRA By-Laws.
See FINRA Rule 0160(b)(10). Article III, Sec. 1(a) generally limits
membership to registered brokers, dealers, municipal securities
brokers or dealers, or government securities brokers or dealers.
NYSE MKT's equivalent term is ``member organization.'' See Rule
2(b)(i)--Equities (defining ``member organization'' as a registered
broker or dealer (unless exempt pursuant to the Act) that is a
member of FINRA or another registered securities exchange). Under
Rule 2(a)--Equities, the term ``member'' means a natural person
associated with a member organization who has been approved by the
Exchange and designated by such member organization to effect
transactions on the floor of the Exchange or any facility thereof. A
``member'' is not a registered broker-dealer and does not have
employees; only member organizations have employees. For purposes of
the proposed amendments to its disciplinary rules, the Exchange
proposes to continue using the phrase ``covered person'' to indicate
employees of a member organization. As noted below, for purposes of
the proposed change, the Exchange proposes to continue using the
phrase ``person associated with a member organization'' to indicate
employees of a member organization for purposes of proposed Rule
2111.

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

Proposed Rule 2111--Equities (Suitability)
    Proposed Rule 2111--Equities (``Rule 2111''), like its FINRA
counterpart, would require a member organization or person associated
with a member organization \19\ to have a ``reasonable basis'' to
believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving
a security or securities is suitable for the customer. This assessment
would be based on the information obtained through the reasonable
diligence of the member organization or person associated with a member
organization to ascertain the customer's investment profile, which
includes, but is not limited to, the customer's age, other investments,
financial situation and needs, tax status, investment objectives,
investment experience, investment time horizon, liquidity needs, risk
tolerance, and any other information the customer may disclose to the
member organization or person associated with a member organization in
connection with such recommendation.\20\ Like the FINRA rule, the
proposed Rule would explicitly cover a recommended investment
strategy.\21\ The proposed Rule would exclude the following
communications from the coverage of proposed Rule 2111 as long as they
do not include (standing alone or in combination with other
communications) a recommendation of a particular security or
securities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As proposed, Rule 2111 is identical to FINRA Rule 2111
except that the Exchange proposes to use the phrase ``member
organization or person associated with a member organization''
rather than ``member or an associated person'' to indicate the
coverage of the rule. As discussed above, ``member'' and ``member
organization'' have different meanings under NYSE MKT and FINRA
rules, and under the Exchange's rules only member organizations can
have employees. See note 16, supra. The Exchange thus proposes to
use the phrase ``person associated with a member organization'' to
indicate employees of a member organization for purposes of proposed
Rule 2111.
    \20\ See Proposed Rule 2111(a). For institutional customers, the
proposed Rule would require that a member organization or person
associated with a member organization have a reasonable basis to
believe that the institutional customer is capable of evaluating
investment risks independently, both in general and with regard to
particular transactions and investment strategies, and is exercising
independent judgment in evaluating recommendations. See Proposed
Rule 2111(b). Institutional customers would also be required to
affirmatively indicate that they are exercising independent
judgment. See id.
    \21\ FINRA Know Your Customer and Suitability Approval, 75 FR at
71481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     General financial and investment information, including
(i) basic investment concepts, such as risk and return,
diversification, dollar cost averaging, compounded return, and tax
deferred investment, (ii) historic differences in the return of asset
classes (e.g., equities, bonds, or cash) based on standard market
indices, (iii) effects of inflation, (iv) estimates of future
retirement income needs, and (v) assessment of a customer's investment
profile;
     Descriptive information about an employer-sponsored
retirement or benefit plan, participation in the plan, the benefits of
plan participation, and the investment options available under the
plan;
     Asset allocation models that are (i) based on generally
accepted investment theory, (ii) accompanied by disclosures of all
material facts and assumptions that may affect a reasonable investor's
assessment of the asset allocation model or any report generated by
such model, and (iii) in compliance with FINRA Rule 2214 (Requirements
for the Use of Investment Analysis Tools) if the asset allocation model
is an ``investment analysis tool'' covered by FINRA Rule 2214; and
     Interactive investment materials that incorporate the
above.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Proposed Rule 2111.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again like its FINRA counterpart, the proposed Rule would be
composed of three main suitability obligations, as follows:
     The reasonable-basis suitability obligation, which
requires a member organization or person associated with a member
organization to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on reasonable
diligence, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some
investors; \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Proposed Rule 2111.05(a). The proposed rule would
clarify that, in general, what constitutes reasonable diligence will
vary depending on, among other things, the complexity of and risks
associated with the security or investment strategy and the member
organization's or person associated with a member organization's
familiarity with the security or investment strategy. Further, a
member organization's or person associated with a member
organization's reasonable diligence must provide the member
organization or person associated with a member organization with an
understanding of the potential risks and rewards associated with the
recommended security or strategy. Finally, the proposed rule would
specify that the lack of such an understanding when recommending a
security or strategy violates the suitability rule. See generally
id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The customer-specific suitability obligation, which
requires that a member organization or person associated with a member
organization have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation
is suitable for a particular customer based on that customer's
investment profile, as delineated in proposed Rule 2111(a); \24\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Proposed Rule 2111.05(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The quantitative suitability obligation, which requires a
member organization or person associated with a member organization who
has actual or de facto control over a customer account to have a
reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended
transactions, even if suitable when viewed in isolation, are not
excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light
of the customer's investment profile, as delineated in proposed Rule
2111(a).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Proposed Rule 2111.05(c). The proposed rule would
provide that no single test defines excessive activity but that
factors such as the turnover rate, the cost-equity ratio, and the
use of in-and-out trading in a customer's account may provide a
basis for a finding that a member organization or person associated
with a member organization has violated the quantitative suitability
obligation. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 2111 would also prohibit a member organization or
person associated with a member organization from recommending a
transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities
or the continuing purchase of a security or securities or use of an
investment strategy involving a security or securities unless the
member organization or person associated with a member organization has
a reasonable basis to believe that the customer has the financial
ability to meet such a commitment.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Proposed Rule 2111.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, like the FINRA rule, proposed Rule 2111 would provide an
exemption to customer-specific suitability for institutional investors,
who would be required to affirmatively indicate that they are
exercising independent judgment in evaluating the recommendations of
the member organization on a trade-by-trade basis, on an asset-class-
by-asset-class basis, or

in terms of all potential transactions for its account.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Proposed Rule 2111.07. Like the FINRA rule, the
institutional-customer exemption would apply only if both parts of
the two-part test are met: (1) There is a reasonable basis to
believe that the institutional customer is capable of evaluating
investment risks independently, in general and with regard to
particular transactions and investment strategies, and (2) the
institutional customer affirmatively indicates that it is exercising
independent judgment in evaluating recommendations. See Proposed
Rule 2111(b); FINRA Know Your Customer and Suitability Approval, 75
FR at 71481, n. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\28\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ in particular, because
the proposed rule change would be consistent with and facilitate a
governance and regulatory structure that is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange's obligations
under the Exchange Act to prevent fraudulent or manipulative acts and
practices, and to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
because the proposed rule would incorporate the FINRA ``know your
customer'' rule and related suitability standards into the Exchange's
Rules. The ``know your customer'' and suitability obligations are
critical to ensuring investor protection and fair dealing with
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
supports the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act by providing
greater harmonization between Exchange rules and FINRA rules of similar
purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance. In particular, Exchange member organizations that are also
FINRA members are subject to NYSE MKT Rule 405 and FINRA Rules 2090 and
2111, and harmonizing these rules by adopting proposed rules identical
to FINRA Rules 2090 and 2111would promote just and equitable principles
of trade by providing greater harmonization between NYSE MKT Rules and
FINRA Rules of similar purpose by requiring the same standards for
``know your customer'' and suitability, resulting in less burdensome
and more efficient regulatory compliance for Dual Members. As
previously noted, the proposed rule text is substantially the same as
NYSE MKT's rule text. To the extent the Exchange has proposed changes
that differ from the FINRA version of the Exchange rules, such changes
are generally technical in nature and do not change the substance of
the proposed rules. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change will update and add specificity to the requirements governing
``know your customer'' and suitability requirements, which will promote
just and equitable principles of trade and help to protect investors.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\30\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to
address competitive issues but rather to achieve greater consistency
between the Exchange's rules and FINRA's rules concerning ``know your
customer'' and suitability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \31\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\32\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \33\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\34\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \35\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-59 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-59. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-59 and should
be submitted on or before July 15, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14933 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P