[Federal Register: July 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 38196]
[DOCID:fr03jy08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER03-114-000]

Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 25, 2008.
    Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc. (GBPM) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed
market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of capacity and energy
at market-based rates. GBPM also requested waivers of various
Commission regulations. In particular, GBPM requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by GBPM.
    On December 3, 2002, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-South, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by GBPM, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission
encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online
link at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
July 8, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, GBPM is authorized to issue securities
and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety,
or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided
that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of GBPM, compatible with the public interest, and is
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of GBPM's issuance of securities or assumptions of
liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http:// www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15091 Filed 7-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53284-53290]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19151]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0985; FRL-9950-50-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving the
portion of a Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal pertaining
to interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in other states.
Disapproval establishes a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Texas to address the Clean Air
Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, unless the EPA approves a SIP that
meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory
sanctions clock for Texas.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0985. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    This rulemaking addresses an infrastructure SIP submittal from the
state of Texas addressing, among other things, the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the good neighbor provision
(or interstate transport prongs 1 and 2), with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The background for this action is discussed in detail in
our April 11, 2016 proposal (81 FR 21290). In that action we proposed
to disapprove the portion of the December 13, 2012 Texas SIP submittal
pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which requires that the
State prohibit any emissions activity within the state from emitting
air pollutants which will significantly contribute to nonattainment
(prong 1) or interfere with maintenance (prong 2) of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in other states.\1\ In proposing to disapprove the SIP submittal
as to prongs 1 and 2 of the good neighbor provision, we noted several
deficiencies in Texas' submittal: (1) Texas limited its discussion of
data only to areas designated nonattainment in states that are
geographically closest to Texas (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois,
Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin);
and (2) Texas did not give the ``interfere with maintenance'' clause of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent significance because its
analysis did not attempt to evaluate the potential impact of Texas
emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that
may have issues maintaining that air quality.\2\ Finally, the EPA
explained that Texas and other states could no longer rely on the
implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy
emission reduction obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (81
FR 21290, 21294-5). The EPA is finalizing its proposed disapproval in
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a separate action, we disapproved the portion of the SIP
submittal pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirement to address the interstate transport of air pollution
which will interfere with other states' programs for visibility
protection (81 FR 296, January 5, 2016). We proposed to approve the
other portions of the infrastructure SIP submittal on February 8,
2016 (81 FR 6483).
    \2\ In addition, the EPA cited at proposal certain technical
information the agency had released in order to facilitate efforts
to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and that this information was used to support the proposed
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(CSAPR Update) (81 FR 21299, 21292). We noted that such information
contradicts Texas' conclusions that its SIP contained adequate
provisions to meet the CAA interstate transport requirements with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See Notice of Data Availability
(NODA), 80 FR 46271, (August 4, 2015) and the proposed CSAPR Update,
80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015). We also noted at proposal that the
EPA technical information in the NODA and the proposed CSAPR Update
accounted for the emission reductions resulting from controls listed
in the SIP, implemented within the state, and nonetheless showed
that Texas will contribute to downwind air quality problems. The
CSAPR Update, however, is outside the scope of this action, and is
irrelevant to the question of whether the Texas SIP should be
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received three comments during the comment period on our
proposed SIP disapproval. The comments were submitted by the State of
Texas (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ``TCEQ''), Luminant (a
Texas electricity producer) and a member of the public. A synopsis of
the comments and our responses are provided below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Comments were received from a member of the public that
was supportive of the EPA's basis for its proposed action, but added
that (1) the public can better understand how we are using the most
current information if we clarify and explain how the projections and
modeling discussed in the evaluation for our proposal are informed by
recent ozone monitoring data, and (2) the commenter stated that the EPA
took too long to propose action on the Texas SIP revision, noting that
Texas would benefit from earlier review of its analysis by the EPA.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's conclusion that Texas's SIP
submittal was inadequate to address the statutory interstate transport
requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With respect to the
commenter's first concern, the projections and modeling released c in
the August 4, 2015 NODA and the proposed CSAPR Update, which we also o
recited in the EPA's proposed action on the Texas SIP submittal. In our
CSAPR Update proposal, we explained how the CSAPR Update Rule proposed
to use recent ozone monitoring data to inform our evaluation of
interstate transport (80 FR 75706, 75724). We proposed to identify as
nonattainment receptors those monitoring sites that (1) measured ozone
concentrations that exceed the NAAQS based on monitoring data from
years 2012-2014, and (2) are projected to exceed the NAAQS in 2017

based on an average design value.\3\ We proposed to identify
maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites that have measured
ozone concentrations that meet the NAAQS (clean data) based on
monitoring data from years 2012-2014 and are projected to exceed the
NAAQS in 2017 based on a maximum or average design value. We proposed
this method of projecting from recent monitoring data to 2017 to
identify maintenance receptors, since the monitoring sites of the
proposed maintenance receptors currently meeting the NAAQS could be
subject to conditions that may allow violations to reoccur and
therefore may have future maintenance concerns. For more information
about how the EPA identified 2017 nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, please see pages 75723-75726 in the proposed CSAPR Update.
(80 FR 75706). Today's rulemaking does not address which monitoring
sites are identified as nonattainment and maintenance receptors with
respect to interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Such
determination, including more recent ozone monitoring data which will
inform that analysis, will be addressed in the EPA's final CSAPR Update
and are outside the scope of this final action. The EPA's disapproval
is based on the inadequacies in the analysis provided in Texas's SIP
submittal, as described in this document and in EPA's proposed action
on that SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The design value for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is the 3-year
average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentration at a monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the timeliness of the EPA's action on the Texas SIP
submittal, CAA section 110(k)(2) requires the EPA to act on SIPs within
one year after a submittal is determined to be complete. We determined
that the Texas infrastructure SIP submittal, which includes transport,
was complete on December 20, 2012. While the EPA generally agrees that
prompt action on state SIP submittals can be beneficial to the states'
planning efforts, in this case, the D.C. Circuit's decision in North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 908-911 (D.C. Cir. 2008) provided the
holding that states must give the ``interfere with maintenance'' clause
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent significance, which Texas
failed to do.
    Comment: The TCEQ stated that it does not support the EPA's
proposed disapproval of the state's interstate transport portion of its
SIP submittal because the TCEQ's interstate transport analysis
adequately addresses the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Specifically, TCEQ stated that the EPA failed to
issue guidance in a timely manner for states to use in developing
infrastructure and transport SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
TCEQ therefore contends that it is inappropriate for the EPA to
conclude that the state's analysis of ozone contributions to other
areas is incomplete when the EPA did not provide timely guidance
stating what would constitute a complete analysis. TCEQ explained that
its SIP revision was submitted on December 13, 2012 in order to meet
the January 4, 2013 deadline by which the EPA was court-ordered to
issue findings of failure to submit infrastructure SIPs for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. TCEQ notes that the EPA did not issue infrastructure SIP
guidance until September 13, 2013, eight months following the January
2013 deadline, which did not contain any information on what would
constitute an adequate interstate transport analysis. TCEQ further
notes that the EPA did not provide information to states regarding
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until 2015, through
information provided in a January 22, 2015 memo, an August 4, 2015
NODA, and the December 3, 2015 CSAPR Update proposal, which was well
after the state's SIP submittal. Therefore, as a result of the EPA's
lack of timely transport guidance for the 2008 ozone standard and
subsequent NODA regarding 2017 nonattainment and maintenance receptor
linkages and contributions, TCEQ contends that it was forced to expend
effort and resources to develop its SIP revision without knowing how
the EPA would evaluate Texas' interstate transport obligation. Further,
the EPA has routinely failed to issue timely guidance for SIP revisions
and to even meet statutory SIP review deadlines in the CAA. As a
result, the EPA has disrupted the SIP development process nationwide,
undermining the states' ability to submit sufficient SIP revisions.
    Response: We disagree that Texas' December 13, 2012 SIP submittal
containing the state's transport analysis adequately addressed the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Rather, the state's
analysis was deficient to address the statutory requirements, as
detailed in the proposal and in more detail in this document. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that for a new or revised standard,
each SIP must contain adequate provisions to prohibit any emissions
activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard in any other
state--here being the 2008 ozone standard. (81 FR 21290-1, April 11,
2016). Texas submitted an analysis of monitoring data, wind patterns,
emissions data and emissions controls and concluded that based on
monitoring data, due to decreases in ozone design values and existing
control measures, emissions from sources from within the state do not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We find that Texas' analysis
was not adequate because Texas limited its discussion of data only to
areas designated nonattainment in states that are geographically
closest to the state and we find this approach incomplete, (as detailed
in our proposal), since the state did not consider other areas that
were not formally designated as nonattainment. (81 FR 21292). Moreover,
the state did not give the ``interfere with maintenance'' clause of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent significance, consistent with
the D.C. Circuit's decision in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
908-911 (D.C. Cir. 2008), because its analysis did not attempt to
evaluate the potential impact of Texas emissions on areas that are
currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining
that air quality. (81 FR 21292). As we noted at proposal the EPA's most
recent technical information demonstrates that emissions from Texas do
impact air quality in other states relative to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
(81 FR 21292-3). With regard to the timelines of EPA guidance, in EPA
v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., the Supreme Court clearly held that
``nothing in the statute places the EPA under an obligation to provide
specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good
neighbor obligations.'' 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014).\4\ While we have
taken a different approach in some prior rulemakings by providing
states with an opportunity to submit a SIP after we quantified the
states' budgets (e.g., the

NOXSIP Call and CAIR \5\), the CAA does not require such an
approach. Regarding the commenter's contention that the EPA's alleged
inability to review SIP submittals within the CAA timelines undermines
the ability of states to submit sufficient SIPs, the State's ability to
submit a sufficient SIP that meets the applicable requirements is
unrelated to the EPA's timeline for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Nothing in the Act differentiates the Good Neighbor
Provision from the several other matters a State must address in its
SIP. Rather, the statute speaks without reservation: Once a NAAQS
has been issued, a State `shall' propose a SIP within three years,
Sec.  7410(a)(1), and that SIP `shall' include, among other
components, provisions adequate to satisfy the Good Neighbor
Provision, Sec.  7410(a)(2).'' EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 134 S. Ct. at 1600.
    \5\ For information on the NOX SIP call see 63 FR
57356 (October 27, 1998). For information on CAIR (the Clean Air
Interstate Rule) see 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: TCEQ and Luminant both state that the EPA's public notice
on the proposed disapproval is not meaningful because they contend that
the outcome was predetermined when the EPA proposed a FIP for Texas in
the proposed CSAPR Update. They stated that at the time of the proposed
FIP to update CSAPR, the EPA had taken no action on the previously
submitted SIP submittal from Texas addressing interstate transport with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The commenters contend that the EPA
should have evaluated the SIP submittal prior to proposing a CSAPR
Update that included Texas. The commenters also stated that we had not
satisfied the prerequisites of CAA section 110(c)(1) when we issued the
proposed FIP for Texas in the proposed CSAPR Update. The commenters
therefore contend that the proposed SIP disapproval is only a post hoc
rationalization for the proposed CSAPR Update, and our approach is
unlawful and impermissibly treads on cooperative federalism required
under the CAA. Lastly, the commenters claim that had we reviewed the
SIP revision before proposing the CSAPR Update for Texas, the state
would have had the opportunity contemplated by the CAA to correct any
problems with its SIP in a timely fashion and avoid the imposition of
the FIP.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters that the proposed
disapproval was predetermined when the EPA issued the proposed CSAPR
Update that included a FIP for Texas. Our proposal to disapprove the
Texas SIP provided proper notice and an opportunity for public comment,
as legally required, and provided distinct bases for the proposed
disapproval. Importantly, the proposed disapproval of the Texas SIP
allowed an opportunity for submittal of any information that could have
changed our proposed views concerning (1) the adequacy of the SIP
submittal, and (2) the effect of Texas emissions on ozone levels in
downwind states as demonstrated in the modeling and contribution
information the EPA relied upon for its proposed disapproval. The EPA
has not received any information demonstrating the identified
inadequacies of the SIP submittal and the data showing the effect of
Texas emissions in downwind states are inaccurate.
    Whether the EPA appropriately proposed the CSAPR Update is outside
the scope of this action, and is irrelevant to the question of whether
the Texas SIP should be disapproved. The bases for the disapproval are
further explained in both the proposal and this final action, and do
not rely upon the proposed CSAPR Update. As described in the proposal
and earlier in this document, whether or not the EPA had proposed the
CSAPR Update, Texas' SIP submittal failed to include an analysis that
appropriately evaluated the impact of state emissions on areas in other
states, regardless of current nonattainment designations and
considering the ability of areas currently measuring clean data to
maintain that standard. These deficiencies are completely independent
of any analysis conducted to support the CSAPR Update proposal.
    Moreover, while the CSAPR Update proposal also relied upon the same
modeling and contribution information to identify which states might be
subject to a FIP in the final rulemaking, in the absence of an
approvable SIP, the proposed disapproval of the Texas SIP did not rely
upon the proposed findings in the CSAPR Update but rather cited, in
addition to other deficiencies identified with the Texas SIP, technical
data that was relevant to and informative for both proposals.
    Our actions are consistent with CAA section 110(c) prerequisites in
promulgating a FIP. In our December 3, 2015 Federal Register notice, we
proposed to include Texas in the CSAPR Update (80 FR 75706). In that
proposal we recognized that we could not promulgate a FIP for any
state, including Texas, in the final CSAPR Update unless we found that
the state had failed to make an approvable SIP submittal (80 FR 75719-
20). A proposed rulemaking does not constitute a promulgation of a rule
by the EPA, and therefore the proposed CSAPR Update does not constitute
a ``predetermined outcome'' of EPA's review of Texas' SIP submittal, as
the commenters describe, nor a promulgated FIP under CAA section
110(c). Were the EPA to finalize an approval of Texas' SIP, the EPA
would not finalize the proposed inclusion of Texas in any final CSAPR
Update. However, for the reasons described earlier, the EPA is
finalizing its disapproval of Texas' SIP. However, this final action
does not promulgate a FIP nor make any final determination regarding
whether and when the EPA will promulgate a FIP. The EPA will determine
whether to issue a FIP in the context of the CSAPR Update in the
rulemaking for that action, and thus any concerns regarding the EPA's
authority to issue a FIP are appropriately raised only in the context
of that rulemaking.
    Finally, the EPA disagrees with the commenters' claim that had we
reviewed the SIP revision before proposing the CSAPR Update for Texas,
the state would have had the opportunity contemplated by the CAA to
correct any problems with its SIP in a timely fashion in order to avoid
the imposition of the FIP. Contrary to commenters' assertions, CAA does
not contemplate that a state have an opportunity to correct
deficiencies with its SIP either before the EPA takes action to act on
the SIP or before the EPA imposes a FIP after disapproval of a SIP. CAA
section 110(c) provides that the EPA ``shall promulgate a [FIP] at any
time within two years after'' the EPA either finds that a state has
failed to make a required submittal or disapproves a SIP, in whole or
in part. As the Supreme Court confirmed in EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation. L.P., ``EPA is not obliged to wait two years or postpone
its action even a single day: The Act empowers the Agency to promulgate
a FIP `at any time' within the two-year limit.'' EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1600-01 (2014). The EPA notes,
however, that states have the ability at any time, including before or
after the imposition of a FIP, to submit an approvable SIP, which
corrects any deficiency.
    Comment: TCEQ commented that we inappropriately stated that it
should have considered possible contributions to downwind areas that
are not designated nonattainment but may nonetheless measure
exceedances of the NAAQS. TCEQ further stated that we fail to mention
how Texas might have accomplished this theoretical exercise
particularly without EPA guidance on how to develop its transport SIP
and considering the EPA relies on nationwide modeling to determine
potential exceedances in areas that are attaining the NAAQS that is not
made available to states prior to the statutory due dates for state
transport SIPs. The TCEQ concedes that the EPA may now consider the
CSAPR schema to be appropriate guidance for transport regulation, but
contends that it is still not possible for states to effectively
respond with timely transport SIPs. The commenter again notes that the
EPA did

not explain what type of transport analysis would be considered
satisfactory when the EPA issued SIP guidance in 2013.
    Response: Regardless of an air quality designation, any area may
violate the NAAQS if upwind emissions affecting air quality are not
adequately controlled. The EPA has routinely interpreted the obligation
to prohibit emissions that ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in downwind states to be independent of
formal designations because exceedances can happen in any area.\6\
Nothing in the CAA limits States' obligations under the good neighbor
provision to downwind areas that have been formally designated
nonattainment. To the contrary, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires
States to prohibit emissions that ``will contribute significantly to
nonattainment in . . . any other State.'' (emphasis added). The future
tense demonstrates that Congress intended this requirement to be
forward-looking and apply to areas that will be in nonattainment
regardless of formal designation. An area with air quality that is
projected to exceed the NAAQS would be in nonattainment, and thus not
meeting public health-based standards, regardless of whether it has
been formally designated as a nonattainment area. An upwind state
cannot be relieved of its obligation to address interstate transport of
air pollution merely because of a lack of formal designation. Thus,
Texas should have considered possible contributions to downwind areas
that are not designated nonattainment but may nonetheless measure
exceedances of the NAAQS in considering whether Texas emissions
significantly contribute to nonattainment in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265
(May 12, 2005) (``As to impacts, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) refers
only to prevention of `nonattainment' in other States, not to
prevention of nonattainment in designated nonattainment areas or any
similar formulation requiring that designations for downwind
nonattainment areas must first have occurred.''); Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011) (evaluating
nonattainment and maintenance concerns based on modeled
projections); Brief for Respondents U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency at 23-24, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No.
11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2015), ECF No. 1532516 (defending the
EPA's identification of air quality problems in CSAPR independent of
area designations). Cf. Final Response to Petition from New Jersey
Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating
Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding facility in violation
of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations
for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the ``interfere with maintenance'' requirement, the
court in North Carolina v. EPA, (531 F.3d 896, D.C. Cir. 2008), was
specifically concerned with areas not designated nonattainment when it
rejected the view that ``a state can never `interfere with maintenance'
unless the EPA determines that at one point it `contribute[d]
significantly to nonattainment.' '' 531 F.3d at 910. The court pointed
out that areas barely attaining the standard due in part to emissions
from upwind sources would have ``no recourse'' pursuant to such an
interpretation. Id. Accordingly, and as described in the proposal, the
court explained that the regulatory authority must give ``independent
significance'' to the maintenance prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by separately identifying such downwind areas for
purposes of defining states' obligations pursuant to the good neighbor
provision. Thus, Texas should have considered the potential impact of
its emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but may
have issues maintaining that air quality.
    Although the TCEQ questions how it could have completed such an
analysis without explicit guidance from the EPA and before the EPA had
conducted air quality modeling evaluating downwind air quality and
contributions, as explained earlier, states bear the primary
responsibility for demonstrating that their plans contain adequate
provisions to address the statutory interstate transport provisions and
the EPA is not required to issue guidance. In separate interstate
transport actions, the EPA has reviewed and finalized action on
interstate transport SIPs in states where air quality modeling was not
available or where the total weight of evidence for finalizing action
on the state's SIP was not solely based on air quality modeling,
according to these standards.\7\ As evidenced by these actions,
consideration of monitoring data is one valid way to evaluate potential
interstate transport impacts, but it does not absolve a state from
evaluating its downwind impact regardless of formal area designations
and considering the requirements of both prongs of the good neighbor
provision. As we noted above and as found by the Supreme Court in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., the lack of guidance does not relieve
either the states of the obligation to submit SIPs that address CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) nor the EPA of the obligation to review such
SIPs consistent with the statutory requirements of the good neighbor
provision. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, we plan to provide information
pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution later this year.\8\
Interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are due October 26,
2018. We plan to continue our ongoing dialogue with states to assist in
developing an appropriate transport SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals
and Promulgations: Utah; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS May 20, 2013 (78 FR 29314); Final Rule,
78 FR 48615 (August 9, 2013); Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of
Pollution; Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and
Interference With Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR
146516, 14616-14626 (March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June
15, 2011); Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006
24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-
27125 (May 12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
    \8\ See pages 6-7 of the attachment to the October 1, 2015 EPA
memorandum ``Implementing the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards'' from Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation to Regional
Administrators, Regions 1-10, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/implementation_memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: TCEQ and Luminant both state that in our CSAPR Update
proposal the EPA did not give independent effect to both the
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' and the ``interfere with
maintenance'' requirements as nonattainment and maintenance receptors
are treated exactly the same way as far as linkages to states are
defined and emission budgets are set. Luminant also claims that the EPA
would be in violation of the Supreme Court in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. if we impose the same ``cost-effective controls'' to
address both interference with maintenance and significant contribution
to nonattainment.
    Further, the comments state that because some states are linked to
receptors in marginal nonattainment areas, the EPA is requiring
emissions reductions from upwind states, including Texas, to assist
states that do not have make emission reductions or institute control
strategies of their own. Further, the comments claim that we have
failed to identify any balance between local controls in areas with
potential maintenance problems and reductions that it is requiring of
states upwind that it models as contributing at least 1% of the
relevant NAAQS to these areas with modeled, not monitored, issues.
    The commenters also disagree with the EPA's finding that the Texas
SIP submittal did not give independent significance to the CAA
``interfere with

maintenance'' requirement and contend that we have misconstrued that
requirement by stating that TCEQ did not evaluate areas currently
measuring clean data. Luminant contends that Texas' SIP does give
independent significance to the ``interfere with maintenance'' clause.
TCEQ claims that the EPA has not promulgated a rule that identifies a
required or recommended methodology for the EPA or states to give
independent consideration to possible contributions that may interfere
with maintenance in downwind areas, and contend that it is arbitrary
and capricious for the EPA to propose disapproval for failure to meet a
standard or requirement that did not exist at the time the statutory
obligation matured.
    Response: As described in the proposal, the EPA proposed
disapproval in part because the Texas SIP submittal did not address the
potential impact of Texas emissions on maintenance areas. Reiterating
our position explained in the proposal, the D.C. Circuit in North
Carolina explained that the regulatory authority must give
``independent significance'' to the maintenance prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions
on downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of
future nonattainment, considering historic variability. North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 908-911 (D.C. Cir. 2008). While one commenter
contends that Texas evaluated the interference with maintenance prong
and concluded monitoring data do not suggest that emissions from Texas
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for areas in any other state, nothing in Texas'
SIP submittal indicates that it performed any analysis to support its
conclusion as the State limited its discussion of data only to certain
areas designated nonattainment and did not consider whether those or
any other areas might have trouble maintaining the standard even if
they measured clean data. Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion,
Texas did not give independent meaning to the interference with
maintenance prong by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on
downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of
future nonattainment, as required by the statute and as clarified by
the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that this standard
or requirement did not exist at the time the statutory obligation to
submit a transport SIP matured. At the time Texas was obligated to
submit a SIP addressing interstate transport requirements for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) clearly required states to
submit a plan containing adequate provisions prohibiting any source or
other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts which will interfere with maintenance by any other
state with respect to a particular NAAQS. This requirement has not
changed since Texas' obligation to submit a transport SIP matured, and
contrary to commenter's assertion, the EPA is not obligated to identify
a required or recommended methodology for giving independent
consideration to possible contributions that may interfere with
maintenance in downwind areas prior to proposing action on a SIP
addressing such statutory requirement. Nonetheless, the State's SIP
made no attempt to evaluate the maintenance prong with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS aside from its conclusory assertion that the
requirements were satisfied.
    To the extent the commenter has raised concerns with respect to the
EPA's interpretation and application of the CAA, including the
``interfere with maintenance'' clause, in the context of the CSAPR
Update rulemaking, such comments are appropriately raised and addressed
in that rulemaking. The EPA is not finalizing in this rule any
determinations regarding the identification of specific downwind
maintenance receptors, the magnitude of Texas' contribution to those
receptors, and the quantity of any emission reductions that might be
necessary. Such determinations will be made in the context of the CSAPR
Update rulemaking. To the extent that Luminant refers to the EPA's
approach as not compliant with the Supreme Court's EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. decision, this comment relates to the CSPAR Update
rulemaking and not our action today. Thus, it is outside the scope of
this action and would be more appropriately addressed in that separate
rulemaking.
    Comment: TCEQ claims that the EPA has not demonstrated that a
contribution by upwind states of 1% of the NAAQS will interfere with
maintenance in identified maintenance areas. Further the TCEQ contends
that the EPA has not demonstrated that a 1% of the NAAQS contribution
to modeled emissions in maintenance areas is appropriate for linking an
upwind state to a maintenance monitor. Further, they contend that EPA
has not demonstrated that the amount of reductions necessary to cure a
contribution to nonattainment is also appropriate to ensure that an
upwind state is not interfering with maintenance. Lastly, TCEQ states
that the 1% contribution threshold is arbitrary.
    Response: The EPA explained in the CSPAR Update proposal its
reasoning for why we believe it appropriate to use the same approach
used in CSAPR to establish a 1% air screening threshold for the
evaluation of interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, including the interference with maintenance requirement. 81 FR
21292-94. The commenter does not explain its allegations that the 1%
threshold is arbitrary nor does the commenter explain how the EPA has
not demonstrated this threshold is appropriate to show interference by
upwind states with maintenance in identified maintenance areas.
    Nonetheless, while the EPA cited the modeling conducted for the
CSAPR Update as showing Texas may significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
downwind states, we did not propose to make a specific finding of
contribution or to quantify any specific emissions reduction
obligation. We did not rely upon a 1% contribution threshold for this
action. Rather, the evaluation of whether emissions from Texas
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind, relying upon the use of a 1%
contribution threshold, and if so what reductions are necessary to
address that contribution, is being conducted in the context of the
CSAPR Update rulemaking. Accordingly, this comment relates to the CSPAR
Update rulemaking and not our action today. Thus, it is outside the
scope of this action and would be more appropriately addressed in that
separate rulemaking. The EPA will consider timely-submitted comments
regarding the EPA's air quality modeling and various associated legal
and policy decisions in finalizing that rulemaking.
    Comment: TCEQ stated that it supports the use of ambient air
quality monitoring data as the only valid basis for making
nonattainment designations and identifying nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and that it does not support the use of modeling
as the basis for designations or identifying either nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for transport. TCEQ contends that using modeling
for these actions could result in major capital expenditures for
industry to fix something that may not be a real problem, and claims
that to base these actions on modeling is inconsistent with

historical and present EPA policies. TCEQ also notes that the EPA does
not redesignate an area to attainment when an area models attainment as
part of an attainment demonstration, but rather uses monitoring data to
verify attainment before redesignation.
    Response: While the EPA does rely on ambient air quality monitoring
data to make decisions on ozone nonattainment designations and
redesignations, the EPA has routinely based its determination of
receptors for purposes of evaluating interstate ozone transport on air
quality modeling projections.\9\ This is because, regardless of
designation, any area may violate the NAAQS if upwind emissions
affecting air quality are not adequately controlled, and areas
currently measuring clean data may still violate the NAAQS if
conditions change such that attainment with the NAAQS can no longer be
maintained. Thus, the means by which the EPA makes decisions with
respect to area designations is not relevant to our identification of
receptors that should be evaluated for interstate transport of air
pollution. In North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit concluded that
the EPA's reliance on future projections to identify such receptors was
a reasonable application of the statute. North Carolina, 531 F.3d at
914. Nonetheless, while the EPA has relied upon modeling to identify
downwind air quality problems, the EPA has also stated that states may
consider other types of data when evaluating interstate transport in
developing their SIPs. See Memorandum from William T. Harnett to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under [CAA] Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006
24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'', September 25, 2009.\10\ Indeed, as described
earlier, the EPA has regularly evaluated interstate transport SIPs in
western states, where modeling has not typically been available,
considering monitored data in a manner that is consistent with the
standards described in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), CAIR (70 FR 25162,
May 12, 2005) and the NOX SIP call (63 FR 57356, October
27, 1998).
    \10\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20090925_harnett_section_110(a)_sip_2006_24-hr_pm2.5_naaqs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: TCEQ stated that we failed to give comments on the
adequacy of the State's interstate transport analysis during the State
public comment period and that the lack of comments led the State to
believe that the submitted analysis was adequate to show how Texas
contributes to other states' ozone concentrations.
    Response: The EPA's authority and obligation under the Act is to
review a SIP submittal and determine whether it meets the applicable
requirements of the Act and regulations, regardless of whether we
commented on a State's proposed SIP during its State rulemaking
process. There is no requirement in the Act that the EPA must review,
evaluate, and comment on a State's proposed SIP revision during the
state rulemaking process, and no reasonable or legal basis for states
to assume that the EPA's choosing to not provide comment on their
analysis during the state public comment period constitutes the
Agency's endorsement of such analysis.
    Comment: Luminant stated that the EPA needs to revise the CSAPR
ozone season NOX budgets in accordance with the D.C.
Circuit's remand in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. before the EPA can
evaluate Texas' SIP submittal. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v
EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Luminant stated that, by failing to
issue new budgets for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, we are in violation of the
D.C. Circuit's specific remand instructions. The commenter contends
that the EPA cannot rationally evaluate Texas' SIP submittal until we
comply with the court's remand. The commenter specifically contends
that the EPA must replace the CSAPR budgets with lawful budgets that do
not require more control than necessary to comply with the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and that otherwise, the EPA has no basis to disapprove the Texas
SIP submittal. By failing to establish lawful budgets, the commenter
claims that the EPA does not have the information necessary to evaluate
additional reductions associated with Texas' plan to comply with the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA has an independent statutory obligation to
evaluate Texas' SIP submittal addressing the good neighbor provision
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The fact that the EPA has not yet
completed its response to the D.C. Circuit's remand to address
interstate transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS does not
preclude either the state from addressing its own statutory obligation
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or the EPA from fulfilling its statutory obligation
to review the SIP submittal pursuant to CAA section 110(k). As noted
earlier, the EPA has identified several deficiencies with the
interstate transport analysis in the Texas SIP submittal that are
unrelated to the CSAPR rulemakings either with respect to the 1997 or
2008 ozone standards.
    The EPA has proposed its intended response to address the D.C.
Circuit's remand of the CSAPR ozone season NOX budgets in
the context of the CSAPR Update, which is expected to be finalized
later this year. The commenter does not explain how the EPA's
finalization of this action with respect to the 1997 ozone standard
would aid in the state's evaluation of transport with respect to the
2008 ozone standard. Nonetheless, should the commenter have any
concerns about the EPA's approach to addressing the court's remand, the
appropriate venue for the EPA's evaluation of those concerns is in the
context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Any concerns are outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
    Comment: Luminant stated that we must reopen the comment period for
the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Luminant contends that comments previously
submitted on the CSAPR Update proposal have limited utility because the
EPA's rationale for disapproving Texas' SIP submittal was not known at
the time those comments were submitted for that proposal.
    Response: As noted earlier, the EPA has identified several
deficiencies with the interstate transport analysis in the Texas SIP
submittal that are unrelated to the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Moreover,
any request to reopen the public comment period on the CSAPR Update is
not appropriately raised in this rulemaking.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons described in the proposal and in this final action,
the EPA is disapproving a portion of the December 13, 2012 SIP
submittal from Texas seeking to address the required infrastructure
element under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
State's significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, known as prongs 1
and 2 of the good neighbor provision.
    In a separate action, we disapproved the portion of the SIP
submittal pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement
to address the interstate transport of air pollution which will
interfere with other states' programs for visibility protection (81 FR
296, January 5, 2016). We proposed to approve the other portions of the
infrastructure SIP submittal on February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6483). We
expect to take final action on the other portions of the Texas
infrastructure SIP at a later date.

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), this disapproval establishes a
2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Texas to address
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS unless Texas submits and we approve a SIP that meets
these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions
clock for Texas pursuant to CAA section 179 because this action does
not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This final action does not impose an information collection burden
under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection
activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely disapproves a SIP submittal as not meeting certain CAA
requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it merely disapproves a SIP submittal as
not meeting certain CAA requirements.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action merely disapproves a SIP
submittal as not meeting certain CAA requirements.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 11, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. Section 52.2275 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2275  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (l) The portion of the SIP submitted on December 13, 2012
addressing Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS is disapproved.

[FR Doc. 2016-19151 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42579-42580]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16934]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69957; File No. SR-CME-2013-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding a Change to Interest Rate Swap Margin Calculation Parameters

July 10, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 28, 2013, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4)(ii)\4\ thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The text of the proposed change is below. Italicized text indicates
additions; bracketed text indicates deletions.
* * * * *

TO: Clearing Member Firms; Back Office Managers

FROM: CME Clearing

DATE: July----, 2013

ADVISORY : 13-XXX

SUBJECT: Update to Interest Rate Swap Margin Parameters

    Please be advised that beginning 7/15/2013, CME Clearing will
utilize a revised set of parameters for the margining of CME cleared
Interest Rate Swap Products.
    The current margin model utilizes 1,260 business days (scenarios).
    The IRS margin model will change parameters through an extended
look back of margins beyond 1,260 scenarios. The change, pending
regulatory review, will preserve key historical dates from the 2008
financial crisis.
    If you have questions, please email the Risk Research team at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed
rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and currently offers clearing
services for interest rate swaps

(``IRS''). With this filing, CME proposes to issue a Clearing Advisory
Notice announcing a change to CME's current Interest Rate Swap margin
calculation parameters effective July 15, 2013.
    The proposed CME Clearing Advisory Notice would inform clearing
members and market participants that CME Clearing would, beginning on
July 15, 2013, make a change in CME's Interest Rate Swap Margin
Calculation Parameters. The change would peg the current look-back
period to September 1, 2008. The current look-back period employs a
five year methodology. By pegging the look back methodology to
September 1, 2008, rather than maintaining the current five year look
back, a number of scenarios stemming from the 2008 financial crisis
will be maintained. These scenarios would have otherwise rolled off
under the current five year methodology. Thus, after the changes are
employed, the look back methodology would now include each new business
day as a new scenario on a rolling basis.
    The changes that are described in this filing are limited to CME's
IRS clearing offering and do not materially impact CME's credit default
swap clearing business in any way. CME notes that it has also submitted
the proposed rule changes that are the subject of this filing to its
primary regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''),
in CME Submission 13-263.
    CME believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act. The proposed rule changes involve enhancements to CME's interest
rate swap product offering for investors, and as such are designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts and transactions,
and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency and, in general, help to
protect investors and the public interest. Furthermore, the proposed
changes are limited in their effect to CME's existing IRS clearing
offering. IRS is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such,
the proposed CME changes are limited to CME's activities as a
derivatives clearing organization clearing swaps that are not security-
based swaps; CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect to
administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of
the policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market
transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the
prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors
and the public interest. In summary, the proposed CME changes do not
significantly affect the security-based swap clearing operations of CME
or any related rights or obligations of CME security-based swap
clearing participants. The changes are therefore consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange and are properly filed
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder.

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The rule changes simply
announce one technical enhancement to CME's current IRS clearing
offering, that is, a change to CME's current IRS margin calculation
parameters.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has been filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \5\ of the Act and paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of Rule 19b-4 \6\
thereunder and will become effective on filing. At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra note 3.
    \6\ Supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CME-2013-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2013-10. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site (http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/files/sec_19b-4_13-10.pdf).
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2013-10
and should be submitted on or before August 6, 2013.

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

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16934 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                          Agenda for Waste Delisting
                          ECY/EPA/EKC/FMF Discussion
                             Tuesday, May 26, 2015
                             9:00 AM  -  11:00 AM

9:00  -  9:05
Introductions and review agenda
9:05  -  9:10
Ecology's interests in exploring retroactive delisting of EKC biological solids
9:10  -  9:15
Quick discussion topics

      Temporary delisting not an option

      Delisting for both future and retroactive
9:15  -  10:20
Overview of delisting process

      Sampling and analysis plan

      Petition

      Rulemaking / public notice

      Likely conditions of delisting

      Available guidance

      EPA vs. state's role
10:20  -  11:00
Next steps

      Tentative schedule

      Document sharing site to exchange information


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76378]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4285-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4285-DR), dated October 10, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 17, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 10, 2016.

    Martin County for Individual Assistance and assistance for
debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and
B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program.
    Tyrrell and Washington Counties for Individual Assistance
(already designated for assistance for debris removal and emergency
protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-26475 Filed 11-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 80 (Friday, April 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23083-23085]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08701]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88700; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Rule 6800 Series, the Exchange's
Compliance Rule Regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the
Consolidated Audit Trail

April 20, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On January 3, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or ``the
Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's compliance rules regarding
the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``CAT NMS Plan'').\3\ The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on January 23, 2020.\4\ On March 5,
2020, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change, to April 22, 2020.\5\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order institutes proceedings pursuant to
Exchange Act Section 19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether to approve or
disapprove File No. SR-NYSE-2020-01.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The CAT NMS Plan was approved by the Commission, as
modified, on November 15, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No79318 (November 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87990 (January 16,
2020), 85 FR 3963 (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88329, 85 FR 14265
(March 11, 2020).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78(s)(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Rule 6800 Series
(``Compliance Rule''), which sets forth rules regarding Industry Member
\7\ compliance with the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, the proposed rule
change would make the following changes to the Compliance Rule to be
consistent with certain proposed amendments to and exemption requests
submitted by the Participants \8\ of the CAT NMS Plan: (1) Revise data
reporting requirements for the Firm Designated ID \9\ based on a
proposed amendment to the CAT NMS Plan filed with the Commission; \10\
(2) amend the dates for required testing and reporting in the
Compliance Rule for Industry Member reporting; \11\ (3) amend the rules
to require Industry Members to submit trade reports for executions and
cancellations for cancelled trades to the FINRA's Trade Reporting
Facilities, FINRA's OTC Reporting Facility or FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility; \12\ (4) revise the timestamp granularity requirement
to require Industry Members with order handling or execution systems
that utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds to
report timestamps up to nanoseconds when reporting Industry Member data
\13\ to the Central

Repository; \14\ (5) revise the reporting requirements for
circumstances in which an Industry Member uses an established trading
relationship for an individual Customer, instead of an account, on the
order reported to CAT; \15\ and (6) revise the CAT reporting
requirements so Industry Members would not be required to report to the
Central Repository dates of birth, social security numbers, or account
numbers for individuals.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Industry Member means a member of a national securities
exchange or a member of a national securities association. See CAT
NMS Plan, supra note 3, at Section 1.1. See also proposed NYSE Rule
6810(s).
    \8\ The Participants include BOX Exchange LLC, Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange,
Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Investors'
Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC, MIAX Emerald, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq
BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, Nasdaq
PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE
National, Inc.
    \9\ As proposed, ``Firm Designated ID'' would mean a unique and
persistent identifier for each trading account designated by
Industry Members for purposes of providing data to the Central
Repository, where each such identifier is unique among all
identifiers from any given Industry Member; provided, however, such
identifier may not be the account number for such trading account if
the trading account is not a proprietary account. See proposed NYSE
Rule 6810(r).
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3964. See also Letter to
Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, SEC, from Michael Simon, CAT NMS Plan
Operating Committee Chair re: Notice of Filing of Amendment to the
National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail
(April 14, 2020). The Commission has not approved or disapproved the
changes proposed in this amendment.
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3967-72. On February 19, 2020,
the Participants submitted a request for exemptive relief from the
reporting dates required by the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter to Vanessa
Countryman, Secretary, SEC, from Michael Simon, CAT NMS Plan
Operating Committee Chair, re: Request for Exemption from Provisions
of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit
Trail related to Industry Member Reporting Dates (Feb. 19, 2020).
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3972. On February 12, 2020,
the Participants submitted a request for exemptive relief from the
requirement in Sections 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(2) and (B) of the CAT NMS Plan
to require Industry Members to record and report, if an order is
executed, the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the
clearing broker, and if a trade is cancelled, the cancelled trade
indicator. See Letter to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, SEC, from
Michael Simon, CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee Chair, re: Request
for Exemption from Certain Provisions of the National Market System
Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail related to FINRA
Facility Data Linkage (Feb. 12, 2020). If granted, the exemptive
relief would revise CAT reporting requirements regarding cancelled
trades and SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifiers of clearing
brokers, if applicable, in connection with order executions, as such
information would be available from FINRA's trade reports submitted
to CAT.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3972-73. On February 3, 2020,
the Participants filed a request for exemptive relief from the
current CAT NMS Plan requirement to record and report Industry
Member Data with time stamps consistent with their system, a
requirement from which the Exchange requests an exemption. See
Letter to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, SEC, from Michael Simon,
CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee Chair, re: Request for Exemption
from Certain Provisions of the National Market System Plan Governing
the Consolidated Audit Trail related to Granularity of Timestamps
and Relationship Identifiers (Feb. 3, 2020). On April 8, 2020, the
Commission granted the exemptive relief for timestamp granularity.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88608 (April 8, 2020), 85 FR
20743 (April 14, 2020).
    \14\ The Central Repository, as defined in the CAT NMS Plan,
means ``the repository responsible for the receipt, consolidation,
and retention of all information reported to the CAT pursuant to SEC
Rule 613 and this Agreement.'' See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at
Section 1.1.
    \15\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3973. On February 3, 2020, the
Participants filed a request for exemptive relief from the CAT NMS
Plan requirement that Participants, through their Compliance Rules,
require Industry Members to record and report to the Central
Repository the account number, the date account opened, and the
account type for individual customers in circumstances in which an
Industry Member uses an established trading relationship for the
individual customer. Instead, the Participant would require Industry
Members to record and report to the Central Repository for the
original receipt or origination of an order: (i) The relationship
identifier instead of the account number, (ii) the ``account type''
as a ``relationship'', and (3) the account effective date instead of
the ``date account opened.'' See Letter to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, SEC, from Michael Simon, CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee
Chair, re: Request for Exemption from Certain Provisions of the
National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail
related to Granularity of Timestamps and Relationship Identifiers
(Feb. 3, 2020).
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3973. The Participants
requested and have received exemptive relief from the requirement of
Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) of the CAT NMS Plan for the Participants, in
their Compliance Rules, to require their members to provide dates of
birth, account numbers and social security numbers for individuals
to the CAT. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88393 (March 17,
2020), 85 FR 16152 (March 20, 2020). See also Letter to Vanessa
Countryman, Secretary, SEC, from Michael Simon, CAT NMS Plan
Operating Committee Chair, re: Request for Exemptive Relief from
Certain Provisions of the CAT NMS Plan related to Social Security
Numbers, Dates of Birth and Account Numbers (Jan. 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Exchange's Compliance Rule
to facilitate the retirement of certain existing regulatory systems,
specifically the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.'s
(``FINRA'') Order Audit Trail System, by adding additional data
elements to the CAT reporting requirements for Industry Members,\17\
additional reporting requirements for alternative trading systems,\18\
and additional data elements related to OTC Equity Securities \19\ that
FINRA currently receives from alternative trading systems that trade
OTC Equity Securities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3965-67.
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3964-65.
    \19\ OTC Equity Security, as defined in the CAT NMS Plan, means
any equity security, other than an NMS Security, subject to prompt
last sale reporting rules of a registered national securities
association and reported to one of such association's equity trade
reporting facilities. See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at Section
1.1.
    \20\ Id. at 3967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \21\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule change to inform the Commission's analysis of whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\22\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade,'' and ``to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \24\ The Commission believes that several of the proposed
rule changes are not consistent with the CAT NMS Plan or exemptive
relief that has been granted as of the date of this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \25\ or any other provision of the Act,
or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear
to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\26\ any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \27\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by May 15, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by May 29,
2020. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Numbers SR-NYSE-2020-01 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-NYSE-2020-01. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-01 and should be
submitted on or before May 15, 2020 Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by May 29, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08701 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P