Modeling Protocol: Dispersion Modeling to Demonstrate Attainment of SO2 Primary NAAQS
                                 June 24, 2011
                                Region 5 States

Dispersion modeling is necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2).  EPA guidance recommends use of the AERMOD, EPA's preferred near-field dispersion model, for this modeling.  The purpose of this document is to identify the procedures that will be followed by Region V States and others in conducting modeling to develop attainment plans for SO2.  Although the states may also be conducting modeling to help determine nonattainment boundaries, this document is focused on the state implementation plan (SIP) modeling analyses.

INTRODUCTION
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary ambient air quality standard for SO2 by establishing a 1-hour standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb). EPA also revoked the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards, but retained the 3-hour secondary standard.  (Note, EPA is anticipating proposing a new SOx and NOx secondary standard in the near future.)  The form of the 1-hour standard is a 3-year average of the 99[th] percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations.

Implementation of the 1-hour standard is based on monitoring and modeling data.  Specifically, areas with either monitoring or modeling data showing a violation of the standard will be designated as nonattainment, and areas with appropriate refined modeling and, where available, monitoring data showing no violations will be designated as attainment.  Monitoring data is not a requirement for attainment.  All other areas will be designated as unclassifiable.

For nonattainment areas, SIPs are due February 2014.  For attainment and unclassifiable areas, SIPs are due June 2013.  In all areas, attainment must be demonstrated as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than July 2017.

EPA GUIDANCE
To assist states in conducting modeling for SO2, EPA has provided several guidance documents:
      *       Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W
      *       Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, March 1, 2011
      *       Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, March 24, 2011

In the preamble to the final rule for the SO2 standard, EPA stated that it will provide additional guidance regarding the application of refined dispersion modeling for implementation of the 1-hour SO2 standard.  EPA further indicated that this guidance will follow Appendix W "with appropriate flexibility for use in implementation".  Consistent with these statements, this protocol document was prepared following the general procedures in Appendix W with some accommodations for the actual air quality situations in the region (e.g., more than 99% of the SO2 emissions come from sources with annual emissions of 80 TPY or more, and current monitored violations are limited to counties with major point sources, such as power plants, or urban industrial areas).  Once EPA issues its intended modeling guidance for the SO2 standard, this protocol will be reviewed and, if necessary, revised.

DATA ANALYSIS
EPA guidance (i.e., Appendix W, and other documents, such as "Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze") recommend that air quality measurements be used in a complementary manner to dispersion models, with due regard for the strengths and weaknesses of both analysis techniques.  In particular, analysis of air quality measurements can provide a "conceptual understanding" of the area's air quality situation.  A conceptual description is useful for helping a state identify priorities and allocate resources in performing a modeled demonstration.  Data analyses of most value are those which help define source-receptor relationships.  These include air quality and emissions trends analyses, and wind direction analyses, such as simple pollution roses and more sophisticated inverse nonparametric analyses.  The data analyses can also be used, along with the dispersion modeling, to support the attainment demonstration as part of a "weight of evidence" determination

MODEL
EPA guidance (i.e., Appendix W) states that:
    For a wide range of regulatory applications in all types of terrain, the recommended model is AERMOD. This recommendation is based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation... Differentiation of simple versus complex terrain is unnecessary with AERMOD. In complex terrain, AERMOD employs the well-known dividing-streamline concept in a simplified simulation of the effects of plume-terrain interactions.
    If aerodynamic building downwash is important for the modeling analysis... then the recommended model is AERMOD. The state-of-the-science for modeling atmospheric deposition is evolving and the best techniques are currently being assessed and their results are being compared with observations. Consequently, while deposition treatment is available in AERMOD, the approach taken for any purpose should be coordinated with the appropriate reviewing authority. Line sources can be simulated with AERMOD if point or volume sources are appropriately combined.

EPA recently released a new version of AERMOD (Version 11103) which includes a number of enhancements to more fully support the form of the new 1-hour SO2 standard, as well as new versions of AERMAP (Version 11103) and AERMET (Version 11059).

According to Appendix W, AERMOD is appropriate for the following applications:
      *       Point, volume, and area sources
      *       Surface, near-surface, and elevated releases
      *       Stacks less than good engineering practice height (i.e., those subject to building downwash)
      *       Primary pollutants (and continuous releases of toxic and hazardous pollutants)
      *       Rural or urban areas
      *       Simple or complex terrain
      *       Transport distances up to 50 km

For regulatory applications, the regulatory default option should be set which requires the use of terrain elevation data and stack-tip downwash, and assumes a 4-hour half-life for SO2 in urban areas.
A conservative alternative is AERSCREEN (Version 11076), which is a screening-level model based on AERMOD.  AERSCREEN could be used to screen out sources from refined modeling.  The model produces estimates of "worst-case" 1-hour concentrations for a single source, without the need for hourly meteorological data, and includes conversion factors to estimate "worst-case" 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, and annual concentrations. AERSCREEN is intended to produce concentration estimates that are equal to or greater than the estimates produced by AERMOD with a fully developed set of meteorological and terrain data, but the degree of conservatism will vary depending on the application.

EPA guidance (i.e., Appendix W) also provide for the use of alternative models and, in certain situations, use of measured data in lieu of model estimates.  This protocol provides this same flexibility.  Use of an alternative model will be allowed if a demonstration is made that the alternative model performs better than AERMOD based on an adequate network of SO2 monitors.  Such an approach was used in supporting the use of the Rough Terrain Dispersion Model (in conjunction with the Industrial Source Complex model, which was the predecessor of AERMOD) for the Hamilton County, Oho SO2 SIP (August 23, 1994, Federal Register).  Use of measured data alone (including ground-based ambient monitoring and fluid modeling) should only be considered in rate situations where there are unique local complexities (e.g., terrain or building downwash) which may be difficult to address with AERMOD.

EMISSIONS
Use of actual v. allowable emissions:  Appendix W recommends the use of short-term allowable emissions - i.e., maximum allowable emission limit and actual or design capacity (whichever is greater) for stationary point sources, including the main facility(ies) of interest and other nearby facilities.

As discussed further below, this protocol recommends a 2-step process in which actual emissions are used to identify which sources should be modeled and allowable emissions are used in the modeling for those sources.  Using actual emissions as an initial screen will ensure that the modeling is focused on those sources with significant SO2 emissions, and using allowable emissions in the modeling will ensure that the resulting SIP emissions for those sources are protective of public health.

Selecting the source(s) at the center of the modeling analysis and other (nearby) sources to be included in the analysis: EPA's March 24, 2011, memo suggests that the modeling should initially focus on the most significant sources of SO2 emissions, e.g., sources emitting greater than 100 tons/year. Furthermore, the memo states that sources less than 100 tons/year can be potential  contributors to a NAAQS violation, especially sources with short stacks and/or located in complex terrain (i.e., where receptor elevations are above stack height).

EPA's March 1, 2011, memo, recognizes that the routine inclusion of all sources within 50 km is likely to produce an overly conservative concentration estimate.  A thorough discussion is provided in the memo of which nearby sources to include in the modeling, and notes that while there is no definitive distance recommendation, the analysis should focus on the area within about 10 kilometers of the project location in most cases.

EPA's guidance effectively requires some analysis with AERMOD or AERSCREEN for all sources.  Current Region 5 state inventories show a very large number of facilities with non-zero SO2 emissions (see Figure 1)  -  e.g., there are more than 1,100 facilities with actual emissions of at least 1 ton/year.  Having to model this number of sources and incorporate them all in the SIP could be a problem for some states.  An analysis of the SO2 emissions inventory for Region 5 shows that sources emitting 80 tons/year or more make-up 99.6% of total SO2 point source emissions in the region.  To provide for a more manageable process, the following approach is recommended.

Step 1:	Use actual annual average emissions to Identify sources to be modeled.  Specifically, assume that any source (total facility) with actual annual average emissions (highest year for the period 2008-2010) of 80 TPY or more will be included in the modeling.

Step 2: Use allowable emissions or federally enforceable permit limits for those sources to be modeled.  In the absence of allowable emissions or federally enforceable permit limits, then assume potential to emit emissions (i.e., design capacity).   Because EPA has already stated that the modeling may rely on SO2 reductions expected to result from federal rules, including those affecting EGUs (i.e., Clean Air Transport Rule) and industrial boilers (i.e., technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)), EPA assistance is needed to determine the appropriate emission reduction credits and allowable emission levels for these sources.

A modeling domain should be established centered on the dominant source(s) in a given county or area and extend out to no more than 50 km (from the dominant source(s)).

EPA has indicated that the attainment demonstration modeling must result in federally enforceable emission limits being established for all modeled sources.  This may necessitate a SIP revision for some sources.  To ensure that the real air quality problems are addressed, states should give priority to SIP revisions for sources located in nonattainment areas and for other sources with the highest (actual) SO2 emissions.

Given the proximity of large SO2 sources to state boundaries, interstate cooperation and coordination will be necessary.  As shown in Figure 1, there are several "large" SO2 sources located within 50 km of another state.  For cases involving just a few large sources, the states in question will discuss who will take the lead on the modeling, and will agree to share emissions data and modeling results.  For cases involving many large sources, both states may need to be involved in the modeling.

Figure 1. SO2 Emission Sources in the upper Midwest (2007 emissions) - EGUs (top),nonEGUs (bottom)
Operating Load and Stack Parameters: EPA guidance recommends that, at a minimum, a source be modeled using design capacity (100 percent load).  Where the source operates at substantially less than design capacity and the changes in the stack parameters associated with the operating conditions lead to higher ground-level concentrations, the guidance recommends that the source also be modeled at loads such as 50 and 75 percent of capacity.

In addition, for sources considering installing SO2 control devices, changes in stack exit parameters (e.g., velocity and temperature) should be taken into account.  Therefore, not only should the modeling analysis consider several operating loads, the affected source may need to be involved with the determination of representative post-control stack parameters.

METEOROLOGY
Meteorological data to be used in AERMOD should be prepared in accordance with "Regional Meteorological Data Processing Protocol, EPA Region 5 and States", December 15, 2010.  (Note, this document is currently being revised to reflect current tools and methods.) The document highlights several aspects of meteorological data processing including:  choice of surface met data, choice of upper air met data, approach for processing surface characteristics, and guidelines for determining representativeness.  The recently released met processing tools, AERMINUTE and AERMET, should be used for processing 1-minute wind data.  The 1-minute wind data address many of the issues with excess calm and missing data hours.   The 1-minute data should be processed for use in regulatory modeling.
In accordance with Appendix W, either 5 years of National Weather Service or at least 1 year of on-site meteorological data should be used in the modeling.

BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
EPA's March 1, 2011, memo notes that ambient air quality data should generally be used to account for background concentrations.  The memo identifies the following hierarchy for developing background concentrations:
      Tier Ia - highest measured 1-hour concentration
      Tier Ib  -  1-hour design value for latest 3-year period
      Tier II - multi-year average of 2[nd] high measured 1-hour concentrations for each season and hour-of-day combination, or the 4[th] high measured 1-hour concentration for hour-of-day only.
      Tier III - no background concentration needs to be included, if a comprehensive emissions inventory

A weight-of-evidence approach using available monitoring and modeling data were used to establish a reasonable regional background concentration.  Specifically, three analyses of monitoring data and three modeling analyses were considered.

Monitoring Data: The first analysis consisted of identifying the 1-hour design value (i.e., Tier Ib) for the two state-operated rural SO2 monitors in the region: one in northern Wisconsin (Forest County) and one in southeastern Iowa (Lake Seguma).  The 2007-2009 1-hour design values at these sites (i.e., Method !b) are 8 and 5 ppb, respectively.

The second analysis considered the SO2 data collected by EPA at rural CASTNET monitoring sites in the region were reviewed.  Due to differences in sampling methodology (use of filter pack analysis) and averaging times (weekly averages), these data are not directly comparable to the continuous reference monitoring conducted by states.  Nevertheless, the average of the maximum weekly values from the five CASTNET sites in the region is on the order of 4 ppb.

The third analysis consisted of a wind direction analysis conducted by Wisconsin DNR for monitoring data from two sites in the northern part of the state: Rhinelander and Green Bay (see "Modeling Protocol : Dispersion Modeling to Demonstrate Attainment of SO2 Primary NAAQS, Comment on Emissions and Background", May 2, 2011).  Removing all 1-hour values associated with winds coming from the direction of the nearby significant SO2 sources resulted in an adjusted design value of about 17 ppb for Rhinelander and about 21 ppb for Green Bay.  However, some hours included in the adjusted design value calculation showed high concentrations.  Examination of these hours showed considerable variability in SO2 concentrations within the hour with indications of impacts from nearby sources.  This variability demonstrates a limitation of this analysis.

Modeling Analyses: The first analysis consisted of modeling by Illinois EPA.  Recognizing the limited number (coverage) of SO2 monitors in the state for determining background concentrations, the Illinois EPA investigated discrete modeling of non-point background sources (area, on-road mobile, offroad mobile), in conjunction with background point sources, as a possible alternative to monitored values. Two pilot studies were conducted which evaluated monitored vs. modeled impacts at Wabash County and Tazewell County monitors. Two of the three monitoring sites were in violation of the 1-hour standard based upon 2007-2009 monitoring data. Background emissions for the county containing the monitor and for a 50 kilometer "buffer" around the county were modeled. Thus, for Wabash County, background emissions included area, on-road, and nonroad emissions from Wabash County and adjoining Illinois and Indiana counties. Somewhat analogous to emissions processing for CAMx chemical transport modeling, the AERMOD modeling used county-level base year emissions (2008 NEI SCC-based emissions) which were allocated to census tracts (from the 2000 Census) using surrogates (population, households, land use/land cover, etc.) for the apportionment. The boundaries of the census tracts became the borders of the AERMOD "AREAPOLY" constructs; the borders defined by vertices assigned through use of Census/third-party spatial information and a geographic information system.

Modeling was conducted for all point and non-point emission sources, however, when modeling was performed using only area, on-oad, and nonroad emissions, the following results were obtained:

      Wabash County
      Mt. Carmel (violating monitor): 6.09 ug/m3 (2.3 ppb), 4th high averaged over 5 years met data; 7.50 ug/m3 (2.8 ppb), peak 2008 concentration
      Rural Wabash County (non-violating monitor): 5.60 ug/m3 (2.1 ppb), 4th high averaged over 5 years met data; 7.15 ug/m3 (2.7 ppb), peak 2008 concentration
      Tazewell County
      Pekin (violating monitor): 14.76 ug/m3 (5.6 ppb), 4th high averaged over 5 years met data; 19.99 ug/m3 (7.6 ppb), peak 2008 concentration

The second analysis consisted of regional CAMx modeling by LADCO using 2007 emissions and meteorology to estimate 4[th] high 1-hour SO2 concentrations across the region. This modeling showed a spatial gradient with higher values across the southern tier of states and lower values across the northern tier of states (see Figure 2).  Overall, a ballpark background value of 5-15 ppb is suggested.

                                                                  Figure 2. LADCO CAMx modeling results (12 km grid spading)

The third analysis consisted of CAMx modeling by Wisconsin DNR to estimate the maximum hourly impact from five large SO2 sources in the state.  This modeling showed an impact of about 5 ppb, comparable to the design value at the Forest County monitoring site in the State.

In summary, a weight-of-evidence approach based on available monitoring and modeling data was used to determine a regional background concentration for the Midwest.  The monitoring data analyses suggest a concentration in the range of 4  -  8 ppb, while the modeling analyses suggest a concentration in the range of 5  -  15 ppb.   Based on this information, a default regional background value of 8 ppb is recommended.  Use of local data or refined analyses may be used to develop more site-specific values.  The background value will be used to account for regional SO2 concentrations and smaller, non-modeled sources, assuming that the approach above will be followed for selecting the sources to be modeled and for establishing the emissions to be used for those sources.

RECEPTOR SPACING
According to Appendix W, modeled receptors should be "utilized in sufficient detail to estimate the highest concentrations and possible violations of a NAAQS....  In designing a receptor network, the emphasis should be placed on receptor resolution and location, not total number of receptors.  The selection of receptor sites should be a case-by-case determination taking into consideration the topography, the climatology, monitor sites, and the results of the initial screening procedure."

As discussed in the March 24 guidance memo, receptors should be placed:
 in areas considered ambient air
 of sufficient density to detect significant concentration gradients -- close together near the source in question to detect local gradients (e.g., 50-100 m) and farther apart away from the source (e.g., 500 m); and
 at key locations, such as around facility fence lines, and at monitor locations

In keeping with the limitation of AERMOD, receptor placement should not extend beyond 50 km of a given source.

As necessary, receptor placement may extend beyond the boundaries of the county in question.   For situations involving "large" SO2 sources located within 50 km of another state, the states in question should agree on the receptor grid.

ATTAINMENT DATE
SIPs for attainment/unclassified areas are due by June 2013 and for nonattainment areas by February 2014.  In all areas, attainment is required as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than July 2017.  Thus, the modeling for all areas should reflect emission reductions expected to be in place by July 2017.

REFERENCES
USEPA, 2005, Appendix W to Part 51 - Guideline on Air Quality Models, November 9, 2005

US EPA, 2010, Guidance Concerning the Implementation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program, August 23, 2010

US EPA 2011, Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, March 1, 2011

USEPA, 2011, Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, March 24, 2011


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10149-10151]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03216]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91112; File No. SR-PEARL-2020-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's By-Laws in
Connection With an Equity Rights Program

February 11, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On November 24, 2020, MIAX PEARL, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``MIAX
PEARL'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Amended and Restated By-Laws of MIAX
PEARL (as amended, the ``MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws'') to
correspond with an Equity Rights Program recently established by the
Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 9, 2020.\3\ On January 21, 2021, pursuant
to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule changes, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule changes.\5\ 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\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90563 (December 3,
2020), 85 FR 79252 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90962, 86 FR 7317
(January 27, 2021). The Commission designated March 9, 2021, as the
date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    On August 14, 2020, the Commission approved a proposed rule change
to adopt rules governing the trading of equity securities on the
Exchange and establish a platform for the trading of equity securities
referred to as MIAX PEARL Equities.\6\ On August 20, 2020, the Exchange
filed an immediately effective proposed rule change to establish an
Equity Rights Program (``ERP''),\7\ pursuant to which Units
representing the right to acquire equity in the Exchange's parent
holding company, Miami International Holdings, Inc. (``MIH''), were
issued to participating Exchange Members in exchange for the prepayment
of certain Exchange fees and the achievement of certain liquidity
volume thresholds on MIAX PEARL Equities over a 42-month period.\8\ In
that August 2020 filing to implement the ERP, the Exchange stated that
``[w]hen a participating Member acquires a certain number of [U]nits,
the Member can appoint one director to the MIAX PEARL Board [of
Directors].'' \9\ In this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend its
By-Laws to provide for the right of such Exchange Members \10\
participating in the ERP to nominate or appoint a representative to the
MIAX PEARL Board of Directors (``PEARL Board'' or ``Board''), as well
as to make other changes, including certain non-substantive
changes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88132 (February 6,
2020), 85 FR 8053 (February 12, 2020) (SR-PEARL-2020-03) (Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Rules Governing the
Trading of Equity Securities); and 89563 (August 14, 2020), 85 FR
51510 (August 20, 2020) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to
Establish Rules Governing the Trading of Equity Securities).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89730 (September 1,
2020), 85 FR 55530 (September 8, 2020) (SR-PEARL-2020-10) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Implement a Second Equity Rights Program) (``ERP Notice'').
    \8\ See ERP Notice, supra note 7, 85 FR at 55530-31. In the ERP
Notice, the Commission noted that MIAX PEARL would need to submit a
separate proposed rule change to make changes to its corporate
governance documents to accommodate aspects of the proposal that
involve or affect the MIAX PEARL Board of Directors. See ERP Notice,
supra note 7, 85 FR at 55532, n.16.
    \9\ See ERP Notice, supra note 7, 85 FR at 55532.
    \10\ See Article I(p) of the MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-
Laws, defining ``Exchange Member'' as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the national
securities exchange operated by [MIAX PEARL].''
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79255. The non-
substantive changes include deletion from the current by-laws of
provisions that specifically referenced past deadlines and events
that have since occurred and deletion of the definition of the term
``Exchange Contract'' in Article I(m) of the current By-Laws because
the term is not used therein or in the MIAX PEARL Amended and
Restated By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend its By-Laws to provide
that an ERP Member \12\ (either by itself or with its affiliates) that
is not otherwise represented on the PEARL Board may have the right to
nominate one ERP Director \13\ or appoint an Observer \14\ to the
Board, as applicable.\15\ As proposed, ERP Directors will be classified
as ``Industry Directors'' \16\ with attendant voting rights, while
Observers will be invited to attend meetings of the Board in a non-
voting Observer capacity.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Article I(n) of the MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-
Laws, defining ``ERP Member'' as ``an Exchange Member who acquired
Units pursuant to an ERP Agreement sufficient to acquire an ERP
Director or an Observer position.'' See also Article I(l) of the
MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, defining ``ERP Agreement''
as ``the agreement between the Exchange's parent holding company,
MIH, and ERP Members dated September 11, 2020 pursuant to which
Units were issued;'' and Article I(pp) of the MIAX PEARL Amended and
Restated By-Laws, defining ``Unit'' as ``the securities issued
pursuant to the ERP Agreement.''
    \13\ See Article I(m) of the MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-
Laws, defining ``ERP Director'' as ``a MIAX PEARL Equities Industry
Director who has been nominated by an ERP Member and appointed to
the Board of Directors.''
    \14\ See Article I(gg) of the MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated
By-Laws, providing that ``Observer'' has the meaning set forth in
Article II, Section 2.2 of the [MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated] By-
Laws. As described further below, an ``Observer'' is a person,
appointed pursuant to Section 2.2 of the MIAX PEARL Amended and
Restated By-Laws that ``may be invited to attend meetings of the
Board in a non-voting observer capacity.''
    \15\ See Article II, Section 2.2(e) of the MIAX PEARL Amended
and Restated By-Laws. The ERP Member's right to nominate a Director
or appoint an Observer pursuant to amended Section 2.2(e) will be
perpetual, subject to the certain conditions discussed below. See
Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79254.
    \16\ See Article I(t) of the MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-
Laws, defining ``Industry Director'' to mean ``a Director who (i) is
or has served in the prior three years as an officer, director, or
employee of a broker or dealer, excluding an outside director or a
director not engaged in the day-to-day management of a broker or
dealer; (ii) is an officer, director (excluding an outside
director), or employee of an entity that owns more than 10% of the
equity of a broker or dealer, and the broker or dealer accounts for
more than 5% of the gross revenues received by the consolidated
entity; (iii) owns more than 5% of the equity securities of any
broker or dealer, whose investments in brokers or dealers exceed 10%
of his or her net worth, or whose ownership interest otherwise
permits him or her to be engaged in the day-to-day management of a
broker or dealer; (iv) provides professional services to brokers or
dealers, and such services constitute 20% or more of the
professional revenues received by the Director or 20% or more of the
gross revenues received by the Director's firm or partnership; (v)
provides professional services to a director, officer, or employee
of a broker, dealer, or corporation that owns 50% or more of the
voting stock of a broker or dealer, and such services relate to the
director's, officer's, or employee's professional capacity and
constitute 20% or more of the professional revenues received by the
Director or member or 20% or more of the gross revenues received by
the Director's or member's firm or partnership; or (vi) has a
consulting or employment relationship with or provides professional
services to the Company or any affiliate thereof or has had any such
relationship or provided any such services at any time within the
prior three years.''
    \17\ See Article II, Section 2.2(g)(iii) of the MIAX PEARL
Amended and Restated By-Laws, providing that Observers will have the
right to attend all meetings of the Board of Directors in a
nonvoting observer capacity and, in this respect, the Exchange shall
give such representative copies of all notices, minutes, consents,
and other materials that it provides to its Directors at the same
time and in the same manner as provided to such Directors; provided,
however, that such representative shall agree to hold in confidence
and trust and to act in a fiduciary manner with respect to all
information so provided. See also Article X, Section 10.3 of the
MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws further providing that the
Exchange reserves the right, however, to withhold any information
and to exclude Observers from any meeting or portion thereof if
access to such information or attendance at such meeting could
adversely affect the attorney-client privilege between the Exchange
and its counsel or result in disclosure of trade secrets or a
conflict of interest, and Section 10.4 of the MIAX PEARL Amended and
Restated By-Laws, in which the Exchange has proposed to provide that
Observers will be subject to the same requirements to maintain the
confidentiality of all books and records of the Exchange reflecting
confidential information pertaining to the self-regulatory function
of the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Article II, Section 2.4(a) of its
By-Laws to provide that the Nominating Committee shall nominate to ERP
Director positions only those persons whose names have been approved
and submitted by the applicable ERP Members having the right to
nominate such person pursuant to Article II, Section 2.2.\18\ If an ERP
Member is otherwise able to nominate an ERP Director but cannot
because, for example, the ERP Member already is represented on the
PEARL Board, e.g., as a Member Representative Director,\19\ the ERP
Member will have the right to appoint an Observer in lieu of such ERP
Director nomination.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange states that MIH, as the sole member of MIAX
PEARL, will then be obligated to vote for the nominated ERP
Director. See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79254.
    \19\ See Article II, Section 2.2(g) of the MIAX PEARL Amended
and Restated By-Laws.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79254. See also note 32
and accompanying text infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, MIAX PEARL proposes to specify that an ERP Member's
right to continued representation on the Board in the form of an ERP
Director or Observer will be contingent upon the ERP Member meeting
certain ``Performance Criteria'' \21\ (i.e., achievement of certain
specified liquidity volume thresholds on MIAX PEARL Equities \22\) over
a specified ``Measurement Period.'' \23\ Thus, ERP Members with the
right to nominate an ERP Director or appoint an Observer may lose that
right if the ERP Member fails to meet the requisite Performance
Criteria.\24\ In the event of such occurrence, if the ERP Member later
satisfies the requisite Performance Criteria for a subsequent
Measurement Period, the ERP Member may regain its right to nominate or
appoint such ERP Member or Observer.\25\ Further, an ERP Director or
Observer position will terminate if the nominating or appointing ERP
Member effects a transfer of common stock or warrants that results in
such ERP Member holding less than 25% of the aggregate number of shares
of common stock issued (or issuable pursuant to Units acquired)
pursuant to the ERP Agreement.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article I(hh),
defining ``Performance Criteria.''
    \22\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article I(cc),
defining MIAX PEARL Equities as ``the market of the Exchange on
which equity securities are traded.''
    \23\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article I(y),
defining ``Measurement Period.''
    \24\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article II,
Section 2.3(c) and (d).
    \25\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article II,
Section 2.3(c) and (d).
    \26\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article II,
Section 2.3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Article II, Section 2.2(b)(i) to
provide that ERP Directors will be included in the number of Industry
Directors for purposes of calculating the composition of the Board,\27\
and Article II, Section 2.2(b)(ii) to provide that Member
Representative Directors will not include ERP Directors.\28\
Accordingly, the Exchange states in its proposal that there will be no
substantive changes to the Board's composition, and that although the
Board size will increase, its composition will remain the same.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article II,
Section 2.2(b)(i), and Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79254.
    \28\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article II,
Section 2.2(b)(ii), and Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79254.
    \29\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, MIAX PEARL proposes to amend the By-Law provisions
that currently provide for the removal and resignation of directors and
the filling of vacancies to address ERP Directors. The Exchange
proposes to adopt paragraph (c) under Article II, Section 2.8 to
provide that if an ERP Director position becomes vacant for reasons
other than failure by an ERP Member to meet its Performance Criteria as
discussed above, the applicable ERP Member will retain the ability to
nominate a person to fill the vacant ERP Director position.\30\ The
Exchange also proposes to amend Article II, Section 2.9(a) to provide
that, ERP Directors may only be removed for cause, which shall include,
without limitation, such Director being subject to a statutory
disqualification.\31\ Further, if at any time such ERP Member is
otherwise able to nominate an ERP Director, but is unable to fill such
position as a result of such ERP Member already having a representative
on the Board, such ERP Member will have the right to nominate such
Director in accordance with amended Article II, Section 2.2(e) upon the
resignation or removal of such Director already serving on the
Board.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws, Article II,
Section 2.8 and Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79254. The Exchange
also proposes to adopt paragraph (f) under Article II, Section 2.2
to provide that if an ERP Director position needs to be added
pursuant to amended Article II, Section 2.2(e), such ERP Director
shall be nominated by the applicable ERP Member and elected by the
LLC Member and additional Director positions shall be added and
filled at the same time as the election of the new ERP Director, as
required to comply with the requirements set forth in Article II,
Section 2.2(a) and (b). See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws,
Article II, Section 2.2(f).
    \31\ An Observer, likewise, may not be subject to a statutory
disqualification. See MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws,
Article II, Section 2.2(g)(ii).
    \32\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79253. The Exchange
states that an ERP Member that is represented by a Member
Representative Director may also have an Observer; however, an ERP
Member that is represented by an ERP Director may not also have an
Observer. See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79253, n.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,\33\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\34\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and (3) of the Act,\35\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange be organized and
have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and
to comply, and to enforce compliance by its Members and persons
associated with its Members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules
and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange; and assure
the fair representation of its members in the selection of its
directors and administration of its affairs, and provide that one or
more directors shall be representative of issuers and investors and not
be associated with a member of the Exchange, broker, or dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \34\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Addition of ERP Directors and Related Provisions

    The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to amend the By-
Laws to provide for the inclusion of ERP Directors on the PEARL Board,

including related amendments to add various definitions and provisions
for terms of office, nomination and election, filling of vacancies, and
removal and resignation, are consistent with the Act.\36\ The
Commission finds that although the Board may become larger if ERP
Directors are added, the composition previously approved by the
Commission in connection with MIAX PEARL's registration as a national
securities exchange \37\ will remain the same.\38\ ERP Directors will
be Industry Directors,\39\ and the Board will continue to be comprised
of a number of Non-Industry Directors,\40\ including at least one
Independent Director,\41\ that equals or exceeds the sum of the number
of Industry Directors and Member Representative Directors.\42\ The
number of Member Representative Directors will not include ERP
Directors, and shall continue to comprise at least 20% of the PEARL
Board.\43\ Additionally, the process for nomination and election of
Member Representative Directors is not impacted by the Exchange's
proposal.\44\ Accordingly, the Commission finds that the provisions
reflecting the possible addition of ERP Directors to the PEARL Board
are consistent with the Act, and in particular with Section 6(b)(3) of
the Act,\45\ in that the Exchange's By-Laws will continue to provide
for the fair representation of members in the selection of directors
and the administration of MIAX PEARL, as well as representation of
issuers and investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Article II, Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.8, and 2.9 of the
MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws.
    \37\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79543 (December 13,
2016), 81 FR 92901 (December 20, 2016) (File No. 10-277) (In the
Matter of the Application of MIAX PEARL, LLC for Registration as a
National Securities Exchange; Findings, Opinion, and Order of the
Commission) (``PEARL Approval Order'').
    \38\ See supra note 29 and accompanying text.
    \39\ See supra note 16.
    \40\ See Article I(aa) of the MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated
By-Laws, defining ``Non-Industry Directors'' to mean ``a Director
who is (i) an Independent Director; or (ii) any other individual who
would not be an Industry Director.''
    \41\ See Article I(p) of the By-Laws, defining ``Independent
Director'' to mean ``a Director who has no material relationship
with the Company or any affiliate of the Company, or any Exchange
Member or any affiliate of any such Exchange Member; provided,
however, that an individual who otherwise qualifies as an
Independent Director shall not be disqualified from serving in such
capacity solely because such Director is a Director of the Company
or its LLC Member.''
    \42\ See Article II, Section 2.2(b)(i) of the MIAX PEARL Amended
and Restated By-Laws.
    \43\ See Article II, Section 2.2(b)(ii) of the MIAX PEARL
Amended and Restated By-Laws.
    \44\ See Article V, Section 5.3 of the MIAX PEARL Amended and
Restated By-Laws.
    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also notes that ERP Directors will be subject to the
same duties and obligations as any other member of the PEARL Board,
including provisions that are designed to help maintain the
independence of the regulatory functions of the Exchange and help
facilitate MIAX PEARL's ability to carry out its responsibilities and
operate in a manner consistent with the Act.\46\ For example, ERP
Directors will be subject to By-Law provisions requiring the PEARL
Board, in connection with managing the business and affairs of MIAX
PEARL, to consider applicable requirements under Section 6(b) of the
Act governing conflicts of interest; requiring the PEARL Board, when
evaluating any proposal, to take into account MIAX PEARL's status as a
self-regulatory organization (``SRO''); and protecting the
confidentiality of information and records related to the Exchange's
SRO function.\47\ In this regard, the Commission finds that the
provisions reflecting the addition of ERP Directors to the PEARL Board
are consistent with the Act, and in particular with Section 6(b)(1),
which requires an exchange to be so organized and have the capacity to
carry out the purposes of the Act.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See PEARL Approval Order, supra note 37, 81 FR at 92906.
    \47\ See Article 2.1(d) and (e) and Section 2.20, and Article X,
Section 10.4 of the MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-Laws. The
Exchange represents that the ERP Directors will be subject to the
same restrictions as current directors, including the provisions
noted above. See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79266.
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Addition of Observer Positions and Related Provisions

    The Commission finds that the proposed amendments to the By-Laws
that add provisions relating to the appointment of Observers, including
related amendments that add various definitions and provisions for
appointment and terms of office are consistent with the Act.\49\ The
Commission also finds that the proposed amendments governing the rights
and obligations of Observers are consistent with the Act. The
Commission finds that although Observers will generally have the right
to attend all meetings of the Board and receive materials provided to
directors,\50\ they will have the right to attend those meetings only
in a non-voting capacity and must agree to hold such information in
confidence and trust and to act in a fiduciary manner with respect to
such information.\51\ Additionally, the Exchange represents that
Observers will be subject to the same requirements as members of the
Board to maintain the confidentiality of all books and records of the
Exchange reflecting confidential information pertaining to the SRO
function of the Exchange.\52\ The Exchange also reserves the right to
withhold any information from an Observer and to exclude an Observer
from any meeting or portion thereof that could, among other things,
result in the disclosure of trade secrets or a conflict of
interest.\53\ The Commission finds that these restrictions on, and
obligations of, Observers are consistent with the Act, particularly
Section 6(b)(1),\54\ in that they are designed to ensure that MIAX
PEARL will remain so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Article II, Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the MIAX PEARL
Amended and Restated By-Laws.
    \50\ See supra note 17 and accompanying text.
    \51\ See Article II, Section 2.2(g)(iii), and Article X,
Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of the MIAX PEARL Amended and Restated By-
Laws; see also supra note 17.
    \52\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 79255.
    \53\ See Article II, Section 2.2(g)(iii) of the MIAX PEARL
Amended and Restated By-Laws; see also supra note 17.
    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\55\ that the proposed rule change (SR-PEARL-2020-30), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03216 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3961-3962]
[DOCID:fr25ja10-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Utah Transit Authority

[Supplement to Waiver Docket Number FRA-1999-6253]

    As a supplement to the Utah Transit Authority's (UTA) Petition for
Approval of Shared Use and Waiver of Certain FRA Regulations (the
original shared use waiver was granted by the FRA Railroad Safety Board
on August 19, 1999, for the Sandy/Salt Lake TRAX LRT line), UTA is
amending the terms and conditions of the original waiver by
constructing the Daybreak/Test Track Segment portion of the Mid-Jordan
LRT line extension of the Sandy/Salt Lake TRAX LRT line. This Test
Track will be an exclusive light rail segment, featuring a limited
connection to the general freight system at an interlocking. UTA
submits that this request is consistent with the waiver process for
Shared Use. See Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over
the Safety of Railroad Passenger Operations and Waivers Related to
Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by Light Rail
and Conventional Equipment, 65 FR 42529 (July 10, 2000); see also Joint
Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Shared Use of the Tracks of the
General Railroad System by Conventional Railroads and Light Rail
Transit Systems, 65 FR 42626 (July 10, 2000).
    UTA is expanding its original Sandy/Salt Lake TRAX LRT line by
building the 10.6-mile Mid-Jordan LRT line extension on the active
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Bingham Branch, which is a single track
used solely for freight operations. As part of this Mid-Jordan
extension, UTA will reconstruct this existing track and add a new
parallel track. This construction will allow that portion of the Mid-
Jordan LRT line that runs on the Bingham Branch to utilize two (2)
tracks for light rail operations during the temporally separated
passenger period. UPRR will continue to operate on the Bingham Branch
only during the freight period. UTA anticipates petitioning FRA at a
future date for a supplemental waiver of compliance from certain
portions of Title 49 of the CFR for shared use temporal separation
operations on this Mid-Jordan LRT line extension.
    This petition pertains to UTA's intent to first construct an
initial 2-mile portion of this Mid-Jordan extension called the
Daybreak/Test Track Segment, which will be used exclusively by UTA TRAX
LRT equipment. This track initially will be used to commission new LRV
equipment and to train LRV operators. This Daybreak/Test Track segment
will be an exclusive light rail portion of the Mid-Jordan LRT line
extension, with a limited connection to UPRR Bingham Branch at address
5600 West. This connection will be composed of four electrically locked
hand throw switches interlocked with UTA's Signal & Train Control
System. In addition to this, UTA will temporarily employ portable
derail devices to separate any possible incursions of UPRR equipment
onto this Daybreak/Test Track equipment. Derails will be permanently
removed once UTA has completed testing and begun pre-revenue service on
the entire Mid-Jordan line.
    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 (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
1999-6253) 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 within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    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 document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 19, 2010.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-1236 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40164-40166]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final Notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways
(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on
the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities
listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to
calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the
floodplain management measures that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: July 31, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Chief executive
      State and county          Location and      officer of     Community map       Date of       Community No.
                                  case No.        community        repository      modification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
    City of Goodyear (16-09-  The Honorable    Engineering      May 12, 2017...  040046.........
     0749P).                   Georgia Lord     Department
                               Mayor, City of   14455 West Van
                               Goodyear 190     Buren Street
                               North            Goodyear, AZ
                               Litchfield       85338.
                               Road Goodyear,
                               AZ 85338.
    Maricopa (FEMA Docket
     No.: B-1706).

    Maricopa (FEMA Docket     Unincorporated   The Honorable    Flood Control    May 26, 2017...          040037
     No.: B-1706).             Areas of         Clint L.         District of
                               Maricopa         Hickman          Maricopa
                               County (16-09-   Chairman,        County 2801
                               2698P).          Board of         West Durango
                                                Supervisors      Street
                                                Maricopa         Phoenix, AZ
                                                County 301       85009.
                                                West Jefferson
                                                Street 10th
                                                Floor Phoenix,
                                                AZ 85003.
    Pinal (FEMA Docket No.:   Town of          The Honorable    Department of    May 12, 2017...          040084
     B-1706).                  Florence (16-    Tom Rankin       Public Works
                               09-1788P).       Mayor, Town of   425 East
                                                Florence 775     Ruggles Street
                                                North Main       Florence, AZ
                                                Street           85132.
                                                Florence, AZ
                                                85132.
California:
    Calaveras (FEMA Docket    City of Angels   The Honorable    Public Works     May 17, 2017...          060021
     No.: B-1706).             (16-09-3078P).   Wes Kulm         Department
                                                Mayor, City of   2990
                                                Angels 584       Centennial
                                                South Main       Road Angels
                                                Street Angels    Camp, CA 95222.
                                                Camp, CA 95222.
    Calaveras (FEMA Docket    Unincorporated   The Honorable    Calaveras        May 17, 2017...          060633
     No.: B-1706).             Areas of         Michael C.       County
                               Calaveras        Oliveria         Planning
                               County (16-09-   Chairman,        Department 891
                               3078P).          Board of         Mountain Ranch
                                                Supervisors      Road San
                                                Calaveras        Andreas, CA
                                                County 891       95249.
                                                Mountain Ranch
                                                Road San
                                                Andreas, CA
                                                95249.
    Monterey (FEMA Docket     Unincorporated   The Honorable    Monterey County  May 18, 2017...          060195
     No.: B-1706).             Areas of         Jane Parker      Water
                               Monterey         Chair, Board     Resources
                               County (17-09-   of Supervisors   Agency 893
                               0070P).          Monterey         Blanco Circle
                                                County P.O.      Salinas, CA
                                                Box 1728         93901.
                                                Salinas, CA
                                                93902.
    San Diego (FEMA Docket    City of Poway    The Honorable    City Hall 13325  May 26, 2017...          060702
     No.: B-1706).             (17-09-0196P).   Steve Vaus       Civic Center
                                                Mayor, City of   Drive Poway,
                                                Poway 13325      CA 92064.
                                                Civic Center
                                                Drive Poway,
                                                CA 92064.
Idaho: Ada (FEMA Docket No.:  Unincorporated   Mr. Jim Tibbs    Ada County       May 17, 2017...          160001
 B-1706).                      Areas of Ada     Commissioner,    County
                               County (16-10-   Ada County 200   Courthouse 200
                               1405P).          West Front       West Front
                                                Street 3rd       Street Boise,
                                                Floor Boise,     ID 83702.
                                                ID 83702.
Illinois: Will (FEMA Docket   Village of       The Honorable    Village Hall     May 19, 2017...          170711
 No.: B-1706).                 Romeoville (16-  John D. Noak     1050 West
                               05-5619P).       Mayor, Village   Romeo Road
                                                of Romeoville    Romeoville, IL
                                                1050 West        60446.
                                                Romeo Road
                                                Romeoville, IL
                                                60446.
Indiana:
    Miami (FEMA Docket No.:   City of Peru     The Honorable    Miami County     May 17, 2017...          180168
     B-1706).                  (16-05-4366P).   Gabriel Greer    Courthouse 25
                                                Mayor, City of   North Broadway
                                                Peru City Hall   Street Peru,
                                                35 South         IN 46970.
                                                Broadway Peru,
                                                IN 46970.
    Miami (FEMA Docket No.:   Unincorporated   The Honorable    Miami County     May 17, 2017...          180409
     B-1706).                  Areas of Miami   Josh Francis     Courthouse 25
                               County (16-05-   Chairman,        North Broadway
                               4366P).          Miami County     Street Room
                                                Commissioners    105 Peru, IN
                                                Miami County     46970.
                                                Courthouse 25
                                                North Broadway
                                                Peru, IN 46970.
Iowa: Scott (FEMA Docket      City of          The Honorable    City Hall 226    May 18, 2017...          190242
 No.: B-1706).                 Davenport (16-   Frank Klipsch    West 4th
                               07-1205P).       Mayor, City of   Street
                                                Davenport City   Davenport, IA
                                                Hall 226 West    52801.
                                                4th Street
                                                Davenport, IA
                                                52801.

Minnesota: Clay (FEMA Docket  Unincorporated   The Honorable    Clay County      May 9, 2017....          275235
 No.: B-1706).                 Areas of Clay    Wayne            Courthouse 807
                               County (17-05-   Ingersoll Vice   11th Street
                               0558P).          Chair, Clay      North
                                                County Board     Moorhead, MN
                                                of               56560..
                                                Commissioners
                                                807 11th
                                                Street North
                                                Moorhead, MN
                                                56560..
Missouri:
    St. Charles (FEMA Docket  City of          The Honorable    City Hall 100    May 12, 2017...          290316
     No.: B-1706).             O'Fallon (16-    Bill Hennessy    North Main
                               07-1736P).       Mayor, City of   Street
                                                O'Fallon 100     O'Fallon, MO
                                                North Main       63366.
                                                Street
                                                O'Fallon, MO
                                                63366.
    St. Charles (FEMA Docket  Unincorporated   Mr. Steve        County           May 12, 2017...          290315
     No.: B-1706).             Areas of St.     Ehlmann County   Administration
                               Charles County   Executive, St.   Building 202
                               (16-07-1736P).   Charles County   North 2nd
                                                100 North 3rd    Street Suite
                                                Street Suite     420 St.
                                                318 St.          Charles, MO
                                                Charles, MO      63301.
                                                63301.
Ohio:
    Huron (FEMA Docket No.:   City of          The Honorable    Bellevue City    May 12, 2017...          390487
     B-1706).                  Bellevue (16-    Kevin G.         Centre 3000
                               05-5908P).       Strecker         Seneca
                                                Mayor, City of   Industrial
                                                Bellevue 3000    Parkway
                                                Seneca           Bellevue, OH
                                                Industrial       44811.
                                                Parkway
                                                Bellevue, OH
                                                44811.
    Sandusky (FEMA Docket     Unincorporated   Mr. Charles      Sandusky         May 12, 2017...          390486
     No.: B-1706).             Areas of         Schwochow        Regional
                               Sandusky         Sandusky         Planning
                               County (16-05-   County           Office 606
                               5908P).          Commissioner     West State
                                                622 Croghan      Street
                                                Street           Fremont, OH
                                                Fremont, OH      43420.
                                                43420.
Texas:
    Tarrant (FEMA Docket      City of          The Honorable    City Hall 401    Apr. 26, 2017..          480590
     No.: B-1706).             Colleyville      David Kelly      Oak Valley
                               (17-06-0726P).   Mayor, City of   Road
                                                Colleyville      Colleyville,
                                                City Hall 100    TX 76034.
                                                Main Street
                                                Colleyville,
                                                TX 76034.
    Tarrant (FEMA Docket      City of Euless   The Honorable    City Hall 201    Apr. 26, 2017..          480593
     No.: B-1706).             (17-06-0726P).   Linda Martin     North Ector
                                                Mayor, City of   Drive Euless,
                                                Euless City      TX 76039.
                                                Hall 201 North
                                                Ector Drive
                                                Euless, TX
                                                76039.
Wisconsin:
    Rock (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of          The Honorable    City Hall 31     May 4, 2017....          550366
     1706).                    Evansville (16-  Bill Hurtley     South Madison
                               05-6630P).       Mayor, City of   Street
                                                Evansville       Evansville, WI
                                                City Hall 31     53536.
                                                South Madison
                                                Street
                                                Evansville, WI
                                                53536.
    Rock (FEMA Docket No.: B- Unincorporated   Mr. Joshua M.    Rock County      May 4, 2017....          550363
     1706).                    Areas of Rock    Smith County     Courthouse 51
                               County (16-05-   Administrator    South Main
                               6630P).          Rock County      Street
                                                Rock County      Janesville, WI
                                                Courthouse 51    53545.
                                                South Main
                                                Street
                                                Janesville, WI
                                                53545.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-17761 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31804-31806]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14669]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83589; File No. SR-NFA-2018-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change to the
Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-30(b): Risk Disclosure
Statement for Security Futures Contracts

July 3, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-7 under the Exchange Act \2\ notice
is hereby given that on June 19, 2018, National Futures Association
(``NFA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been prepared by NFA. The Commission is
publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 7, 2018, NFA also filed this proposed rule change with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and requested that the
CFTC make a determination that review of the proposed rule change of
NFA is not necessary. By letter dated June 18, 2018, the CFTC notified
NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See letter from Matthew Kulkin, Director CFTC, to Carol A.
Wooding, General Counsel, NFA (``Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the self-
regulatory organization's office, on the NFA's website at
www.nfa.futures.org, and at the SEC's Public Reference Room.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description and Text of the Proposed
Rule Change

    NFA's Interpretive Notice 9050 entitled ``NFA Compliance Rule 2-
30(b): Risk Disclosure Statement for Security Futures Contracts''
(``Interpretive Notice 9050'') requires NFA Members and Associates
(``Member'') who are registered as brokers or dealers under Section
15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act \4\ to provide a disclosure statement for
security futures products (``SFPs'') to a customer at or before the
time the Member approves the account to trade SFPs. This risk
disclosure statement contains, among other things, a section on
settlement by physical delivery, which indicates that the normal
clearance and settlement cycle for securities transactions is three
business days. NFA is amending Section 5.2 of Interpretive Notice 9050
to update the disclosure statement for SFPs to reflect the shortened
settlement cycle from three business days to two business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C 78o(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NFA is also amending Section 6.1 of Interpretive Notice 9050 to
reflect the current address for the Securities Investor Protection
Corporation (``SIPC''). Further, NFA is amending Interpretive Notice
9050 to incorporate other non-substantive changes. The text of the
proposed rule changes to Interpretive Notice 9050 is found in Exhibit
4.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act \5\ makes NFA a national
securities association for the limited purpose of regulating the
activities of NFA Members who are registered as brokers or dealers in
security futures products under Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange
Act.\6\ NFA's Interpretive Notice 9050 applies to all NFA Members who
meet the criteria outlined in Interpretive Notice 9050, including those
that are registered as security futures brokers or dealers under
Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The risk disclosure statement for SFPs is a uniform statement that
was jointly developed in 2002 by NFA, FINRA, and a number of securities
and futures exchanges. The statement discusses the characteristics and
risk of standardized security futures contracts traded on regulated
U.S. exchanges and indicates that the settlement by physical delivery
is three business days.
    On September 5, 2017, the securities industry moved from a T+3
settlement cycle to a T+2 settlement cycle for in-scope securities
trades, including U.S. equity trades. Accordingly, NFA's amendment to
Section 5.2 of Interpretive Notice 9050 is nothing more than a
technical amendment to update the disclosure statement for SFPs to
reflect the shortened settlement cycle from three business days to two
business days.
    NFA is also amending Section 6.1 of Interpretive Notice 9050 to
provide the current contact information for SIPC and to change the
spelling of ``broker/dealer'' to ``broker-dealer''. To incorporate
other non-substantive changes, NFA is amending Interpretive Notice 9050
in Section 2.4 to correct a cross-reference and in Section 8.2 to
remove an extraneous word. FINRA has amended and submitted the proposed
changes to the SEC for approval.
    Amendments to NFA Interpretive Notice 9050 were previously filed
with the SEC in SR-NFA-2002-05, Exchange Act Release No. 34-46613 (Oct.
7, 2002), 67 FR 64176 (Oct. 17, 2002); SR-NFA-2002-06, Exchange Act
Release No. 34-47150 (Jan. 9, 2003), 68 FR 2381 (Jan. 16, 2003); SR-
NFA-2007-07, Exchange Act Release No. 34-57142 (Jan. 14, 2008), 73 FR
3502 (Jan. 18, 2008); SR-NFA-2010-02, Exchange Act Release No. 34-62624
(Aug. 2, 2010), 75 FR 47666 (Aug. 6, 2010); SR-NFA-2010-03, Exchange
Act Release No. 34-62651 (Aug. 4, 2010), 75 FR 48393 (Aug. 10, 2010);
and SR-NFA-2014-02, Exchange Act Release No. 34-71980 (Apr. 21, 2014),
79 FR 23027 (Apr. 25, 2014) .
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is authorized by, and consistent with,
Section 15A(k)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.\8\ That Section requires NFA
to have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
including rules governing sales practices and advertising of security
futures products. The proposed rule change accomplishes this by
requiring Members to provide customers trading in SFPs with a risk
disclosure statement which reflects the shortened settlement date of
two days after the transaction. Accordingly, NFA is amending
Interpretive Notice 9050 to update the disclosure statement for SFPs to
reflect the shortened settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2. Further, NFA is
amending Interpretive Notice 9050 to reflect the updated contact
information for SIPC and other non-substantive stylistic changes. This
proposal is not designed to regulate, by virtue of any authority
conferred by the Exchange Act, matters not related to the purposes of
the Exchange Act or the administration of the association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NFA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change would not
impose any additional reporting requirements or costs on Members.

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

    NFA did not publish the rule change to the membership for comment.
NFA

did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change.

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

    On June 18, 2018, the CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to
review the proposed rule change.\9\ The proposed rule change will
become effective on July 18, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter, Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the
proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC,
may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the
proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of
Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NFA-2018-03 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-NFA-2018-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NFA. All comments received will
be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned
that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from
comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish
to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NFA-2018-03 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14669 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27629-27631]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-191-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Bernville Compressor Units
Replacement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

June 7, 2019.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Bernville Compressor Units
Replacement Project involving the replacement of two existing
compressor units at the Bernville Compressor Station by Texas Eastern
Transmission, L.P. (Texas Eastern) in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The
Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the
Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time on July 8, 2019.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on April 18, 2019, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP19-191-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know? This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://

www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP19-191-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Eastern proposes to replace two existing compressor units at
the Bernville Compressor Station in Berks, Pennsylvania. The
replacement activities would require the use of additional temporary
workspace beyond the existing facility boundary. The project would
consist of the following new facilities:
     Installation one 26,000 horse-power (hp) and one 18,100 hp
solar natural gas-fired centrifugal turbine compressor units and
associated auxiliary piping and equipment;
     installation of related software controls that would limit
the total hp of the 26,000 hp compressor unit to 23,700 hp;
     conversion of existing 3,070 square foot compressor unit
building to a new office building and other related appurtenances.
    The project would involve removing one 22,000 horsepower (hp) and
one 19,800 hp natural gas-fired centrifugal turbine compressor unit and
the associated auxiliary piping and equipment. The Project would also
involve removing a 4,352 square-foot building, which houses the
existing 22,000 hp compressor unit, to allow for the installation of an
11,780 square-foot building to house the two new replacement compressor
units.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.

Land Requirements for Construction

    The Project's replacement activities would require the use of land
for temporary workspace beyond the existing compressor station
boundary. The existing station lies within a fenced area encompassing
approximately 13.4 acres. Construction of the project would disturb
about 7.6 acres within the existing station fenceline and 10 acres
outside of the fenceline. Texas Eastern would maintain 9.5 acres for
permanent operation of the project's facilities following construction
(1.9 acres of which would be outside of the existing fenceline on Texas
Eastern property). The remaining acreage would be restored and revert
to former uses.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:

     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts

    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \4\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\1\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\2\ The EA for this project will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes;
libraries; newspapers; and other interested parties. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose

property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes
within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who
submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the
environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that
Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all
individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/
or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number in
the Docket Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP19-
191). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: June 7, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12459 Filed 6-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P