[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21226-21232]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09880]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0055; FRL-9977--44--Region 8]

Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) Standard for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota and Wyoming

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming addressing
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport SIP requirements
for the 2012 annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These submissions address the
requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air
emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other
states. The EPA is proposing to approve portions of these
infrastructure SIPs for the aforementioned states as containing
adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in the states will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0055 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. EPA
Region 8,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). An area meets the standard if the
three-year average of its annual average PM2.5 concentration
(at each monitoring site in the area) is less than or equal to 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\. The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable
``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these
applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions to prohibit
certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of pollution.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly
referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2).
The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in
one state from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or
from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state
(prong 4).

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and
prong 2 portions of infrastructure SIP submissions submitted by:
Colorado on December 1, 2015; Montana on December 17, 2015; North
Dakota on August 23, 2015; South Dakota on January 25, 2016; and
Wyoming on June 24, 2016, as containing adequate provisions to ensure
that air emissions in these states will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been
addressed in separate rulemakings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 82 FR 39030, August 17, 2017 (Colorado); 81 FR 23180,
April 20, 2016 (Montana); 82 FR 46681, October 6, 2017 (North
Dakota); 82 FR 38832, August 16, 2017 (South Dakota); 82 FR 18992,
April 25, 2017, and 82 FR 9142, February 3, 2017 (Wyoming).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2012 PM[bdi2].[bdi5]
Interstate Transport SIPs

    We review each state's submission to see how it evaluates the
transport of air pollution to other states for a given air pollutant,
the types of information the state used in its analysis, how that
analysis compares with prior EPA rulemakings, modeling, and guidance,
and the conclusions drawn by the state.
    The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing
interstate transport with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. This
framework includes the following four steps: (1) Identify downwind
areas that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
NAAQS; (2) Identify which upwind states contribute to these air quality
problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis;
(3) Identify any emissions reductions necessary to prevent an
identified upwind state from significantly contributing to downwind
nonattainment or interfering with downwind maintenance of the NAAQS;
and (4) Adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
    To help states identify the receptors expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the
EPA released a memorandum titled, ``Information on the Interstate
Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' on March 17, 2016 (hereon ``2016
Memo'').\2\ The 2016 Memo provides projected future year annual
PM2.5 design values for monitors throughout the country
based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring data and
recent air quality modeling and explains the methodology used to
develop these projected design values. The 2016 Memo also describes how
the projected values can be used to help determine which monitors
should be further evaluated as potential receptors under step 1 of the
interstate transport framework described above, and how to determine
whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This memorandum is available in the docket and at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop the projected values presented in the 2016 Memo, the EPA
used the results of nationwide photochemical air quality modeling that
it recently performed to support several ozone NAAQS-related
rulemakings. Base year modeling was performed for 2011. Future year
modeling was performed for 2017 to support the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016). Future year modeling was performed for 2025 to
support the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone
NAAQS.\3\ In addition, and relevant to this proposed action on
interstate transport SIPs for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
the outputs from these model runs included hourly concentrations of
PM2.5 that were used in conjunction with measured data to
project annual average PM2.5 design values for 2017 and
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas that were designated as moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014
must attain the NAAQS by December 31, 2021, or as expeditiously as
practicable. Since modeling results are only available for 2017 and
2025, the 2016 Memo explains that one way to assess potential receptors
for 2021\4\ is to assume that receptors projected to have average and/
or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also
likely to be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021.
Similarly, the EPA stated that it may be reasonable to assume that
receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025
are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. Where a potential
receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but
projected to be attainment in 2025, further analysis of the emissions
and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement regarding the
receptor status in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Assessing downwind PM2.5 air quality problems
based on estimates of air quality concentrations in a future year
aligned with the relevant attainment deadline is consistent with the
instructions from the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008), that upwind emission
reductions should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the
attainment deadlines for downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this approach, the EPA identified 19 potential
nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors. All of the 17 potential
nonattainment receptors are located in California. One of the potential
maintenance-only receptors is located in Shoshone County, Idaho, and
the other potential maintenance-only receptor is located in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.
    In the 2016 Memo, the EPA noted that because of data quality
problems, nonattainment and maintenance projections were not done for
all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Data quality problems were since resolved for Tennessee, Kentucky and
Florida, identifying no additional potential receptors, with those
areas having design values below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
and expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for
NOX and SO2 (www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values and www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data). Recent ambient data from 2015 and 2016 for
Idaho and Illinois indicated that violations of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in the areas with previous data quality issues
are unlikely. Considering this information, the very low background
concentrations recorded at IMPROVE monitoring site locations in Idaho,
and the continuing downward trend of annual PM2.5 levels at
monitors across Illinois, we propose that the Idaho and Illinois areas
should not be considered receptors for purposes of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These data quality issues are addressed in more detail in
the technical support documents (TSDs) for this rulemaking, which
can be found in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying potential receptors, the next step is to identify
whether upwind states contribute to air pollution at each of the
identified receptors in other states. In the 2016 Memo, the EPA did not
calculate the portion of any downwind state's predicted
PM2.5 concentrations that would result from emissions from
individual states. Accordingly, the EPA will evaluate prong 1 and 2
submissions for states using a weight of evidence analysis.

This analysis is based on a review of the state's submission and other
available information, including air quality trends; topographical,
geographical, and meteorological information; local emissions in
downwind states and emissions from the upwind state; contribution
modeling from prior interstate transport analyses; and existing and
planned emission control measures in the state of interest. While none
of these factors is by itself dispositive, together they may be used in
weight of evidence analyses to determine whether the emissions from
each of the five states that are the subject of this notice will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at the identified receptors
in the 2016 Memo.

III. States' Submissions and the EPA's Analysis

    In this section, we provide an overview of each state's 2012 annual
PM2.5 transport analysis, as well as a summary of the EPA's
evaluation of prongs 1 and 2 for each state. A detailed discussion of
our evaluations can be found in the Technical Support Documents (TSDs)
for this action, with separate TSDs for each of the five states. The
TSDs can be accessed through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R08-OAR-
2018-0055).
    Colorado: Colorado concluded that it does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state for the following
reasons: (1) Colorado has never violated the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS; (2) The nearest downwind nonattainment area is about 900 miles
from Colorado's eastern border,\6\ and the nearest upwind nonattainment
area is about 600 miles from Colorado's western border; and (3)
Colorado has an EPA-approved Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
that will result in substantial future reductions of PM2.5
and its precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Colorado was referring to the Floyd County, Indiana area.
The EPA did not consider transport to this area as part of this
action because no receptors in the area were projected as
nonattainment or maintenance monitors in the 2016 Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that, because Colorado's analysis focused on
designated nonattainment areas, it does not independently address
whether the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
any other state. In remanding the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to
the EPA in North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit explained that the
regulating authority must give the ``interfere with maintenance''
clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``independent significance'' by
evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that,
while currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment,
considering historic variability.\7\ While Colorado's submittal pre-
dates the 2016 Memo, which provided the states with information about
potential maintenance-only receptors, Colorado was still required to
evaluate the potential impact of its emissions on areas that are
currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining
that air quality, and Colorado did not do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA
must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviewed the information in Colorado's submittal, as well
as the 2016 Memo and additional supplemental information for our
evaluation, and we propose to come to the same conclusion as the state.
This includes Colorado's conclusion that the state will not interfere
with maintenance in downwind states, because we supplemented the
state's analysis by identifying and assessing impacts on potential
maintenance receptors. In our evaluation, we identified potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors using the 2016 Memo.
We then evaluated these receptors to determine whether Colorado
emissions could significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance at them. Below, we provide an overview of our
analysis. A more detailed evaluation of how the SIP revisions meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) may be found in the
Colorado TSD.
    With regard to the 17 California receptors, our analysis showed
that elevated PM2.5 levels in California are driven
primarily by local emissions.\8\ Additionally, Colorado's western
border is more than 570 miles to the east and generally downwind of the
California receptors, with several intervening mountain ranges which
tend to impede interstate pollution transport. Finally, monitoring data
demonstrate that the air in remote areas between Colorado and
California is well below the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
All of these factors indicate that emissions from Colorado will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at any California projected
receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast
Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for
the 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Shoshone County, Idaho receptor, our analysis
showed that elevated PM2.5 levels in the area are driven
primarily by local emissions from wood burning in the wintertime.\9\
Additionally, Colorado is more than 550 miles to the southeast and
downwind of this receptor. Finally, monitoring data indicate that the
air in remote areas between Colorado and the Idaho receptor is well
below the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. All of these
factors indicate that emissions from Colorado will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Shoshone County receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area--2012
Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania receptor, our
analysis included review of previous modeling data conducted for the
EPA's 2011 CSAPR, which addressed the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.\10\ For the 2011 CSAPR, the EPA modeled contribution from states
in the Eastern U.S. to air quality monitors (referred to as
``receptors'') also located in the Eastern U.S.\11\ Therefore, the 2011
CSAPR modeling did not project downwind contribution of emissions from
Colorado, but projected contributions from states immediately east of
Colorado, including Kansas. This modeling indicated that Kansas, a
state located much closer to the Allegheny County receptor and with
higher PM2.5 precursor emissions than Colorado,\12\ was
modeled to be below 1% (the contribution level at which eastern states
were considered ``linked'' to downwind receptors in the CSAPR and CSAPR
Update rulemakings) of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at all
receptors in the eastern U.S., including the Allegheny County receptor.
Additionally, the modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 Memo
shows that the Allegheny County receptor is projected to both attain
and maintain

the NAAQS by 2025. These factors, in addition to the very large
distance (1,165 miles) from the Allegheny County receptor to the
Colorado border, indicate that emissions from Colorado will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Allegheny County
receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Table V.D-1 in the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) (August 8, 2011), at 76 FR 48240.
    \11\ In these rules, ``Eastern'' states refer to all contiguous
states east of the Rocky Mountains, specifically not including:
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.
    \12\ See Tables 7-1 and 7-2 in ``Emissions Inventory Final Rule
Technical Support Document (TSD)'' for CSAPR, June 28, 2011,
Document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4522 in www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these analyses, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
submittal as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
that Colorado emissions will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    Montana: Montana concluded that it does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state for the following
reasons: (1) The one PM2.5 nonattainment area within the
state, the Libby 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area, monitors
PM2.5 values which attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS;
(2) Elevated levels of PM2.5 in the state which can occur
during the wintertime are highly dependent on low wind speed and
meteorological ``inversions'' that lead to limited vertical mixing,
resulting in neighborhood-scale impacts that are unlikely to contribute
to elevated PM2.5 levels in other states; and (3) The
evidence indicates that Montana does not contribute to elevated
emissions at the only area designated nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS with close proximity to the state, the West
Silver Valley in Shoshone County, Idaho. Montana cited the EPA's
technical support document on the West Silver Valley, Idaho
nonattainment area designation,\13\ which indicated that residential
wood combustion within the West Silver Valley during wintertime periods
of low wind speeds and low mixing height was the primary cause of the
PM2.5 issues in that area. Montana also noted winds into the
West Silver Valley tend to be westerly, and that the Bitterroot and
Coeur D'Alene mountain ranges run along the western border of Montana
between the state and the West Silver Valley nonattainment area.
Montana asserted that all of these considerations combined made it
unlikely that emissions from Montana sources will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in the
West Silver Valley, Idaho area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ``Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area- 2012
Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that, because Montana's analysis focused on
designated nonattainment areas, it does not independently address
whether the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
any other state. While Montana's submittal pre-dates the 2016 Memo,
which provided the states with information about potential maintenance-
only receptors, Montana was still required to evaluate the potential
impact of its emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean
data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality, and
Montana did not do so.
    The EPA reviewed the information in Montana's submittal, as well as
the 2016 Memo and additional supplemental information for our
evaluation, and we propose to come to the same conclusion as the state.
This includes Montana's conclusion that the state will not interfere
with maintenance in downwind states, because we supplemented the
state's analysis by identifying and assessing impacts on potential
maintenance receptors. In our evaluation, we identified potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors using the 2016 Memo.
We then evaluated these receptors to determine whether Montana
emissions could significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance at them. Below, we provide an overview of our
analysis. A more detailed evaluation of how the SIP revisions meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) may be found in the TSD.
    With regard to the Shoshone County, Idaho receptor, our analysis
indicated that elevated PM2.5 levels in the area are driven
primarily by local emissions from wood burning in the wintertime during
inversion conditions, and therefore are not driven by transported
emissions.\14\ Monitoring data also indicate that the air in remote
areas in western Montana and throughout the region is well below the
level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, especially during the winter
months when PM2.5 levels at the Shoshone County receptor are
highest.\15\ Additionally, the predominant wind direction in Shoshone
County is from the west, while Montana is located to the east, making
transport of emissions from Montana to this receptor unlikely. Finally,
the intervening topography of the Bitterroot and Coeur D'Alene mountain
ranges would impede interstate pollution transport. These factors,
which are also discussed in Montana's analysis and further examined by
the EPA in a TSD for this action,\16\ indicate that emissions from
Montana will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected
Shoshone County receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See Id. at 13, as well as ``IMPROVE data 2013-2015,'' in
the docket for this action.
    \16\ The TSD for the Montana portion of this rulemaking can be
found in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the 17 California receptors, our analysis showed
that elevated PM2.5 levels in California are driven
primarily by local emissions.\17\ Additionally, Montana is more than
630 miles to the northeast and generally downwind of the California
receptors, with several intervening mountain ranges which tend to
impede interstate pollution transport. Finally, monitoring data
demonstrate that the air in remote areas between Montana and California
is well below the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. All of
these factors indicate that emissions from Montana will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at any California projected
receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast
Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for
the 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania receptor, our
analysis included review of previous modeling data conducted for the
EPA's 2011 CSAPR.\18\ The 2011 CSAPR modeling did not project downwind
contribution of emissions from Montana, but projected contributions
from states immediately east of Montana, including North Dakota. This
modeling indicated that North Dakota, a state located much closer to
the Allegheny County receptor and with higher PM2.5
precursor emissions than Montana,\19\ was modeled to be below 1% of the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at all receptors in the eastern
U.S., including the Allegheny County receptor. Additionally, the
modeling information contained in the EPA's 2016 Memo shows that the
Allegheny County receptor is projected to both attain and

maintain the NAAQS by 2025. These factors, in addition to the very
large distance (1,267 miles) from the Allegheny County receptor to
Montana's eastern border, indicate that emissions from Montana will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Allegheny County
receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Table V.D-1 in the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) (August 8, 2011), at 76 FR 48240.
    \19\ See Tables 7-1 and 7-2 in ``Emissions Inventory Final Rule
Technical Support Document (TSD)'' for CSAPR, June 28, 2011,
Document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4522 in www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analyses, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
submittal as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
that Montana emissions will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    North Dakota: North Dakota concluded that it does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state for the following
reasons: (1) There are no PM2.5 nonattainment areas within
North Dakota; (2) The nearest 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area,
in Shoshone County, Idaho, is roughly 660 miles west of the western
border of North Dakota. Given that the three PM2.5 monitors
in western North Dakota indicate very low annual PM2.5
levels, and the wind in the western U.S. is generally westerly, any
PM2.5 contribution from North Dakota to the nearest
nonattainment area would be insignificant; (3) The modeling conducted
for the EPA's CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208) indicated that North
Dakota sources have a maximum annual average contribution to any
nonattainment area of .06 [mu]g/m\3\, and a maximum contribution of .04
[mu]g/m\3\ to any maintenance receptor in the Eastern U.S.; (4) Annual
PM2.5 monitor values throughout North Dakota are all well
below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and (5) Direct and precursor
emissions of PM2.5 have been steadily declining in North
Dakota for years. Between 2004-2014, NOx emissions in the state
decreased by 36%, SO2 emissions decreased by 64%, and
primary particulate emissions from major point sources decreased by
19%, with further anticipated reductions due to North Dakota's Regional
Haze requirements.
    The EPA reviewed the information in North Dakota's submittal, as
well as the 2016 Memo and additional supplemental information for our
evaluation, and we propose to come to the same conclusion as the state.
In our evaluation, we identified potential downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors using the 2016 Memo. We then evaluated these
receptors to determine whether North Dakota emissions could
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
at them. Below, we provide an overview of our analysis. A more detailed
evaluation of how the SIP revisions meet the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) may be found in the North Dakota TSD.
    With regard to the 17 California receptors, our analysis showed
that elevated PM2.5 levels in California are driven
primarily by local emissions.\20\ Additionally, North Dakota is more
than 1,030 miles to the east and generally downwind of the California
receptors, with several intervening mountain ranges which tend to
impede interstate pollution transport. Finally, monitoring data
demonstrate that the air in remote areas between North Dakota and
California is well below the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
All of these factors indicate that emissions from North Dakota will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at any California projected
receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See ``California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast
Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for
the 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Technical Support Document: in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Shoshone County, Idaho receptor, our analysis
showed that elevated PM2.5 levels in the area are driven
primarily by local emissions from wood burning in the wintertime.\21\
Additionally, North Dakota is more than 500 miles to the east and
downwind of this receptor. Finally, monitoring data indicate that the
air in remote areas between North Dakota and the Shoshone County
receptor is well below the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
All of these factors indicate that emissions from North Dakota will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Shoshone County
receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See ``Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area- 2012
Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania receptor, our
analysis included review of previous modeling data conducted for the
EPA's 2011 CSAPR.\22\ As noted, this modeling projected North Dakota's
impact at all receptors in the eastern U.S., including the Allegheny
County receptor, and that impact was modeled to be well below 1% of the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at all receptor locations.\23\
Additionally, the modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 Memo
shows that the Allegheny County receptor is projected to both attain
and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. These factors, in addition to the very
large distance (925 miles) from the Allegheny County receptor to North
Dakota's eastern border, indicate that emissions from North Dakota will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected
Allegheny County receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Table V.D-1 in the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) (August 8, 2011), at 76 FR 48240.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these analyses, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
submittal as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
that North Dakota emissions will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    South Dakota: South Dakota concluded that it does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state for the following
reasons: (1) There are no 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance areas within South Dakota or neighboring states; (2)
Source-oriented PM2.5 emissions are low throughout South
Dakota; (3) Existing programs in the South Dakota SIP will prevent new
or modified sources from causing nonattainment in South Dakota or
contributing significantly to nonattainment or maintenance with this
NAAQS in neighboring states; and (4) South Dakota has a small
population.
    The EPA notes that, because South Dakota's analysis focused on
designated nonattainment areas, it does not independently address
whether the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
any other state. While South Dakota's submittal pre-dates the 2016
Memo, which provided the states with information about potential
maintenance-only receptors, South Dakota was still required to evaluate
the potential impact of its emissions on areas that are currently
measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air
quality, and South Dakota did not do so.
    The EPA reviewed the information in South Dakota's submittal, as
well as the 2016 Memo and additional supplemental information for our
evaluation, and we propose to come to the same conclusion as the state.
This includes South Dakota's conclusion that the state will not
interfere with maintenance in downwind states, because we supplemented
the state's analysis by identifying and assessing impacts on potential
maintenance

receptors. In our evaluation, we identified potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors using the 2016 Memo. We then
evaluated these receptors to determine whether South Dakota emissions
could significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance at them. Below, we provide an overview of our analysis. A
more detailed evaluation of how the SIP revisions meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) may be found in the South Dakota TSD.
    With regard to the 17 California receptors, our analysis showed
that elevated PM2.5 levels in California are driven
primarily by local emissions.\24\ Additionally, South Dakota is more
than 937 miles to the northeast and generally downwind of the
California receptors. Finally, monitoring data demonstrate that the air
in remote areas between South Dakota and California is well below the
level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. All of these factors indicate
that emissions from South Dakota will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at any California projected receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See ``California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast
Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for
the 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Shoshone County, Idaho receptor, our analysis
showed that elevated PM2.5 levels in the area are driven
primarily by local emissions from wood burning in the wintertime.\25\
Additionally, South Dakota is more than 600 miles to the east and
downwind of this receptor. Finally, monitoring data indicate that the
air in remote areas between South Dakota and the Idaho receptor is well
below the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. All of these
factors indicate that emissions from South Dakota will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Shoshone County
receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See ``Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area--2012
Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania receptor, our
analysis included review of previous modeling data conducted for the
EPA's 2011 CSAPR.\26\ This modeling projected South Dakota's impact at
all receptors in the eastern U.S., including the Allegheny County
receptor, and that impact was modeled to be well below 1% of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS at all receptor locations.\27\
Additionally, the modeling information contained in the EPA's 2016 Memo
shows that the Allegheny County receptor is projected to both attain
and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. These factors, in addition to the very
large distance (880 miles) from the Allegheny County receptor to South
Dakota's eastern border, indicate that emissions from South Dakota will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected
Allegheny County receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Table V.D-1 in the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) (August 8, 2011), at 76 FR 48240.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these analyses, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
submittal as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
that South Dakota emissions will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    Wyoming: Wyoming concluded that it does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state for the following
reasons: (1) There are no PM2.5 nonattainment areas within
Wyoming, and all PM2.5 monitors in the state indicate levels
well below the NAAQS in spite of certain maximum values being
influenced by wildfires; (2) There are no 2012 PM2.5
nonattainment areas in states bordering Wyoming apart from Idaho; and
(3) The evidence indicates that Wyoming does not contribute to elevated
emissions at the only area designated nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS with close proximity to the state, the West
Silver Valley in Shoshone County, Idaho. This nonattainment area is
over 300 miles from the nearest border of Wyoming, and wind roses
within Wyoming show that winds primarily blow west-to-east, and do not
favor southeast-to-northwest transport needed for Wyoming emissions to
impact this nonattainment area. The monitored PM2.5 values
in the Wyoming counties nearest the West Silver Valley, Idaho
nonattainment area are well below the NAAQS. Wyoming also cited the
EPA's technical support document on the West Silver Valley, Idaho,
nonattainment area designation,\28\ which indicated that residential
wood combustion and prescribed burning within the West Silver Valley
were the primary causes of PM2.5 issues in that area.
Wyoming also stated that the Beaverhead, Lemhi, Teton and Gallatin
mountain ranges also inhibited westward transport between Wyoming and
the West Silver Valley, Idaho nonattainment area. Wyoming asserted that
all of these considerations combined made it reasonable to conclude
that emissions from Wyoming sources are not significantly contributing
to nonattainment in the West Silver Valley, Idaho area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See ``Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area--2012
Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that, because Wyoming's analysis focused on
designated nonattainment areas, it does not independently address
whether the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
any other state. Each state is required to evaluate the potential
impact of its emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean
data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality, and
Wyoming did not do so.
    The EPA reviewed the information in Wyoming's submittal, as well as
the 2016 Memo and additional supplemental information for our
evaluation, and we propose to come to the same conclusion as the state.
This includes Wyoming's conclusion that the state will not interfere
with maintenance in downwind states, because we supplemented the
state's analysis by identifying and assessing impacts on potential
maintenance receptors. In our evaluation, we identified potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors using the 2016 Memo.
We then evaluated these receptors to determine whether Wyoming
emissions could significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance at them. Below, we provide an overview of our
analysis. A more detailed evaluation of how the SIP revisions meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) may be found in the Wyoming
TSD.
    With regard to the Shoshone County, Idaho receptor, our analysis
showed that elevated PM2.5 levels in the area are driven
primarily by local emissions from wood burning in the wintertime during
inversion conditions, and therefore are not driven by transported
emissions.\29\ Additionally, monitoring data indicate that the air in
remote areas between Wyoming and the Idaho receptor is well below the
level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These factors indicate that
emissions from Wyoming will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS

at the projected Shoshone County receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the 17 California receptors, our analysis showed
that elevated PM2.5 levels in California are driven
primarily by local emissions.\30\ Additionally, Wyoming is more than
548 miles to the east and generally downwind of the California
receptors, with several intervening mountain ranges which tend to
impede interstate pollution transport. Finally, monitoring data
demonstrate that the air in remote areas between Wyoming and California
is well below the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. All of
these factors indicate that emissions from Wyoming will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at any California projected
receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See ``California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast
Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for
the 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania receptor, our
analysis included review of previous modeling data conducted for the
EPA's 2011 CSAPR.\31\ The 2011 CSAPR modeling did not project
contribution of emissions from Wyoming, but projected contributions
from states immediately east of Wyoming, including Nebraska. This
modeling indicated that Nebraska, a state located much closer to the
Allegheny County receptor and with higher PM2.5 precursor
emissions than Wyoming,\32\ was modeled to be below 1% of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS at all receptors in the eastern U.S.,
including the Allegheny County receptor. Additionally, the modeling
information contained in the EPA's 2016 Memo shows that the Allegheny
County receptor is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS by
2025. These factors, in addition to the very large distance (1,260
miles) from the Allegheny County receptor to Wyoming's eastern border,
indicate that emissions from Wyoming will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Allegheny County receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Table V.D-1 in the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) (August 8, 2011), at 76 FR 48240.
    \32\ See Tables 7-1 and 7-2 in ``Emissions Inventory Final Rule
Technical Support Document (TSD)'' for CSAPR, June 28, 2011,
Document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4522 in www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these analyses, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
submittal as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
that Wyoming emissions will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the following submittals as meeting
the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: Colorado's December 1, 2015
submittal; Montana's December 17, 2015 submittal; North Dakota's August
23, 2015 submittal; South Dakota's January 25, 2016 submittal; and
Wyoming's June 24, 2016 submittal. The EPA is proposing this approval
based on our review of the information and analysis provided by each
state, as well as additional relevant information, which indicates that
in-state air emissions will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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,
these proposed actions merely approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are 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.);
     do 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);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     do 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, these SIPs are not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 4, 2018.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-09880 Filed 5-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

General Comment: Mr. Mitch Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am formally requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. This Proposed Rule asks nearly one hundred separate questions, many of which I wish to personally respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I've already spent countless hours researching these issues, but it will take more time. I am aware that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers and advocates for harm reduction, to provide our feedback and insight; this issue affects millions of people, whether directly or indirectly, and is an important step into the future.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible tobacco cigarettes. I smoked a pack-and-a-half of tobacco cigarettes for 20 years, and after unsuccessfully trying every available smoking cessation method available (nicotine patch, gum, lozenge, etc.), e-cigarettes worked for me. I'll gladly provide you with my personal history, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions, so that you can take my forthcoming comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation. As American citizens, we have the right to determine what is best for us and to make informed decisions and determinations about our own health.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and will gladly discuss this further with you if desired.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56425-56427]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22333]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73096; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Removing Building Access and Other
Restrictions on Traders Conducting Certain Futures and Options Trading
on ICE Futures U.S., Inc. in Space Rented From the Exchange

September 15, 2014.
    On July 15, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a proposed rule
change to removing building access and other restrictions on traders
conducting certain futures and options trading on ICE Futures U.S.,
Inc. The proposed rule change was published for public comment in the
Federal Register on August 1, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72681 (July 28, 2014),
70 FR 44906.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background and Introduction

    The Exchange proposes to remove building access and other
restrictions on traders conducting certain futures and options trading
on ICE Futures U.S., Inc. (``IFUS'') \4\ in space rented from the
Exchange (the ``IFUS Trading Floor'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ IFUS is a Designated Contract Market pursuant to the
Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and is regulated by the U.S.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Background

    On February 13, 2013, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
relocate trading of certain futures and options contracts conducted on
IFUS from rented space at the New York Mercantile Exchange (``NYMEX'')
to trading space at 20 Broad Street, New York, New York, commonly known
as the ``Blue Room'', and to amend NYSE Rule 6A, which defines the
terms ``Trading Floor'' and ``NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor'' (the
``Original Filing'').\5\ The Original Filing stated that the IFUS
Traders relocating to 20 Broad Street and their clerical employees \6\
would only utilize the 18 Broad Street entrance to access the Blue Room
\7\ and, once inside, be prohibited from entering the Main Room, where
most of the NYSE and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') Equities Floor brokers
and all NYSE and NYSE MKT Equities Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'')
are located, as well as the NYSE Amex Options trading floor. In
addition, the Original Filing represented that the IFUS Traders would
sit together in dedicated booth space approximately 40 feet long by 10
feet wide with privacy barriers consisting of eight foot walls on both
sides except for the two gated and badge access entry and exit security
doors at the front and back of the booth, which are four feet high. A
compliance officer from IFUS Market Regulation is also present in the
Blue Room performing on-site surveillance on a regular basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68996 (February 27,
2013), 78 FR 14378 (March 5, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-13).
    \6\ Currently, there are 24 IFUS Traders and 13 clerical staff
on the IFUS Trading Floor. At the time of the Original Filing, there
were 40 IFUS Traders.
    \7\ Specifically, the IFUS Traders must use the 18 Broad Street
entrance elevator and enter the Trading Floor using the turnstile
nearest the Blue Room. The Exchange has been monitoring badge swipes
at other locations to identify instances where the IFUS Traders
utilize a different entrance and referring those findings to IFUS
Compliance for appropriate action. Last year, there were
approximately 22 instances in which individual IFUS Traders or their
clerical staff used an entrance or turnstile other than 18 Broad
entrance and turnstiles authorized for their use. However, IFUS
Compliance found that all of these were inadvertent use of either of
a wrong turnstile for the 18 Broad St. entrance, another entrance
necessitated for use when gaining visitor access or when the 18
Broad St. entrance was temporarily inaccessible, or to access a
bathroom, and therefore, chose not to take any disciplinary action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2013, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
clarify that the IFUS Traders may, on an as needed basis and only prior
to 7 a.m., access the Blue Room via the Exchange's 11 Wall Street
facilities, which would entail walking through the Main Room to access
the Blue Room, and that the IFUS Traders may access the Blue Room via
the Exchange's 11 Wall Street facilities on days that the Exchange is
closed (the ``Supplemental Filing'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Certain of the IFUS Traders conduct business on foreign
markets on Exchange holidays. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 69763 (June 13, 2013), 78 FR 37265 (June 20, 2013) (SR-NYSE-
2013-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to: (i) Eliminate the building access
restrictions, which would allow the IFUS Traders to enter the
Exchange's facilities from either the 11 Wall Street or 18 Broad Street
entrances; (ii) eliminate the restriction on the IFUS Traders entering
or crossing the Main

Room in order to access the IFUS Trading Floor; and (iii) remove the
gated and badge access entry and exit security doors at the front and
back of the IFUS Traders' booth (the ``Proposal'').
    The Exchange states that it does not believe that removing the
restrictions on the IFUS Traders would provide the IFUS Traders with an
unfair competitive advantage over other market participants. The
Exchange states that it believes removing certain restrictions on the
IFUS Traders entering or crossing the Main Room is appropriate, in
part, because IFUS is purely an electronic trading market. Although
there is a physical IFUS Trading Floor, the Exchange notes that there
is no open outcry trading. IFUS Traders may accept customer orders for
IFUS contracts by telephone or electronically and enter such orders
electronically to the IFUS trading platform. However, IFUS Traders are
prohibited by IFUS rules from orally discussing orders or transactions
with each other while on the IFUS Trading Floor and communications
between IFUS Traders on the IFUS Trading Floor must be made via instant
message, email, or recorded telephone line. In addition, order tickets
are prepared and time-stamped for each customer order. IFUS Traders may
also enter orders electronically for their own proprietary account.
There are 24 IFUS Traders,\9\ and four of the 24 IFUS Traders engage in
proprietary-only trading, while the rest enter customer orders for
execution and engage in proprietary trading on IFUS. IFUS lists and
trades futures and options on futures on cotton, frozen concentrated
orange juice, coffee, sugar, cocoa, energy, foreign currencies, and
certain Russell Indices \10\ (the ``IFUS Contracts''), but effects
transactions primarily on options on cotton futures.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ There were 40 IFUS Traders last year and no IFUS Traders are
members of the Exchange, NYSE MKT or Amex Options.
    \10\ These include the Russell 2000, Russell 1000, and Russell
Value and Growth, all of which qualify as broad-based indices. The
Exchange states, however, that the IFUS Traders trade only a small
volume of the Russell products and, of that small volume, most is in
the Russell 2000 mini-contracts.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68996 (February
27, 2013), 78 FR 14378 (March 5, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that IFUS traders do not have wireless
hand-held devices and can only conduct trading in IFUS products via
terminals located on the IFUS Trading Floor. In addition, none of the
IFUS Traders are registered to trade any of the securities traded on
the Exchange, nor have the capability to enter orders in Exchange-
traded securities from the IFUS Trading Floor via the IFUS electronic
trading system.
    The Exchange represents that there is a limited nexus between
products that trade on IFUS and those that trade on the Exchange and
that the only IFUS Contracts related to Exchange-traded products are
futures and options on futures on certain Russell indexes, all of which
are broad-based indexes as defined in Section 3(a)(55)(C)(vi) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that market participants ability to
manipulate these are limited.\12\ The Exchange further notes that
pricing information about the products traded on the IFUS Trading Floor
is contemporaneously and publicly available on Bloomberg and other
quotation reporting systems. Thus, to the extent there is any
correlation between the price movements of the products traded on the
IFUS Trading Floor and Exchange-listed companies with exposure to those
commodity-based products, the Exchange believes IFUS Traders are not in
possession of any non-public information regarding pricing of such
products that could be used improperly by the IFUS Traders or Exchange
members. The Exchange represents that IFUS Traders represent only a
small proportion of IFUS's total trading volume.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(A). IFUS product offerings have
historically been benchmark futures and options contracts relating
to agricultural products, currencies, and broad-based market
indexes. There are no plans to offer single stock futures on IFUS.
    \13\ As noted in the Original Filing, approximately 83% of
IFUS's total daily contract volume is in IFUS energy contracts. The
IFUS Traders transact less than 5% of the 17% of IFUS's average
daily volume that is not related to energy contracts and a fraction
of 1% of the total average daily IFUS volume (which includes the
energy contracts transacted on IFUS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') is provided with the names of the IFUS
Traders to assist in identifying any potentially violative trading \14\
and that, to date, FINRA has not identified any regulatory or other
concerns about the IFUS Traders, identified suspicious activity or
behavior, or identified instances where confidential order information
was compromised or inappropriately used. The Exchange further
represents that the following important safeguards will remain in
place: (i) IFUS Traders sitting together in segregated booth space with
privacy barriers to reduce the likelihood that trading screens can be
viewed or conversations overheard between firms and traders; (ii) IFUS
Market Regulation compliance officer performing on-site surveillance on
a regular basis; and (iii) Exchange's equities and options on-Floor
surveillance staff being located near the IFUS Trading Floor. Finally,
the Exchange represents that its members and member organizations have
been notified of their responsibly to protect the confidentiality of
nonpublic order and trade information, and to not engage in any
trading, order or market related communications with the IFUS Traders
or their clerical staff.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Providing the names of the IFUS Traders to FINRA was for
the purpose of regulatory information sharing. Neither the Exchange
nor FINRA will be responsible for regulating or surveilling the IFUS
Traders' activity, and the IFUS Traders are not subject to the
Exchange's jurisdiction. Rather, the IFUS Traders will continue to
be regulated by IFUS.
    \15\ See Member Education Bulletin 2013-5 (March 20, 2013),
available at http://www.nyse.com/nysenotices/nyse/education-
bulletins/pdf.action?memoid=2013-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\16\ The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) \17\ in particular, in that it 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, safeguards will remain in place to
protect against IFUS Traders gaining an unfair competitive advantage
over other market participants. The Exchange emphasizes that IFUS
traders do not have wireless hand-held devices, are restricted to
trading IFUS products at terminals located in the IFUS Trading Floor,
and that IFUS Market Regulation compliance officers perform on-site
surveillance on a regular basis. In addition, no IFUS Traders are
registered to trade any Exchange securities, and they do not have the
ability to enter orders in Exchange-traded securities from the IFUS
Trading Floor via the IFUS electronic trading system. The Exchange also
notes that there is a limited pricing nexus between products traded on
IFUS, and that pricing information about the products traded

on the IFUS Trading Floor is contemporaneously and publicly available
on Bloomberg and other quotation reporting systems. Finally, the
Exchange notes that equities and options on-Floor surveillance staff
will continue to be located near the IFUS Trading Floor and FINRA has
been provided with the names of the IFUS Traders to assist in
identifying any potentially violative trading involving the IFUS
Traders.
    Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes the proposed rule
change to eliminate the restrictions on the manner in which the IFUS
Traders enter the Exchange's facilities and the prohibition on IFUS
Traders from entering or crossing the Main Room on the way to the IFUS
Trading Floor is consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2014-39), is hereby approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22333 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80451-80452]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32455]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2015-0132]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated September 22, 2015, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter
Railroad Corporation (Metra) has petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part
238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition
docket number FRA-2015-0132.
    Metra seeks a 6-month waiver of compliance from the requirements of
49 CFR 238.115(b)(1)-(2) regarding passenger car emergency lighting
(until June 30, 2016). Metra is seeking this temporary relief because
70 percent of its passenger rolling stock fleet of 544 coaches, which
were ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and placed into service prior
to September 9, 2002, will not meet the emergency lighting requirement
deadline of December 31, 2015. Metra justifies the need for this
deadline extension because of ongoing funding and technical
difficulties. The extra time sought in this petition will allow Metra
to retrofit 70 percent of its passenger rolling stock fleet to meet the
requirements.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by February 8, 2016 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-32455 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P