[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 15366]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 14497-000]

Archon Energy 1, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 11, 2013, the Archon Energy 1, Inc., filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Kings River Drop 3 Hydroelectric Project (Kings river Drop 3 Project or
project) to be located on Kings River, near the city of Sanger, Fresno
County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A VLH
diversion canal intake and a gated turbine structure adjacent to the
eastern abutment of the existing dam; (2) a 300-foot by 60-foot turbine
structure enclosing three VLH 4000 turbo generators; (3) a 10 foot by
10 foot electrical control shack; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have a total installed capacity of 1.5 megawatts
(MW) and generate an estimated average annual energy production of
10,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) by diverting existing stream flow into the
diversion canal.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul Grist, Archon Energy 1, Inc., 101 E.
Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800, Tampa, Florida 33602, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14497) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: March 4, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05549 Filed 3-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2700-2704]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00723]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82489; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2017-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Modify the
NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

January 11, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 29, 2017, NYSE American LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
American'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify portions of the Fee
Schedule, as described below, effective January 1, 2018.
Market Maker Sliding Scale-Electronic (``Sliding Scale'')
    Section I.C. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the Sliding Scale of
transaction fees charged to NYSE American Options Marker [sic] Makers
(referred to as Market Makers herein), which fees decrease upon the
Market Maker achieving higher monthly volumes.\4\ Currently, Market
Makers that have monthly volume on the Exchange of 0.15% or less of
total Industry Customer Equity and ETF Option Volume are charged a base
rate of $0.25 per contract and, these same market participants, upon
reaching certain volume thresholds, or Tiers, receive the same per
contract reduction for volume in each respective tier, as set forth in
the table below. In addition, the Exchange charges a lower per contract
base rate (of $0.23) to Market Makers that participate in a Prepayment
Program, with lower marginal rates applied to volumes in successive
tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.C., available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (excluding any volumes
attributable to Mini Options, QCC trades, CUBE Auctions, and
Strategy Execution Fee Caps, as these transactions are subject to
separate pricing described in Fee Schedule Sections I.B., I.F.,
I.G., and I.J, respectively). The volume thresholds are based on a
Market Makers' volume transacted Electronically as a percentage of
total industry Customer equity and Exchange Traded Fund (``ETF'')
options volumes (``ADV'') as reported by the Options Clearing
Corporation (the ``OCC''). See OCC Monthly Statistics Reports,
available here, http://www.theocc.com/webapps/monthly-volume-reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Market Maker
                             Electronic Monthly                       Rate per contract if Monthly Volume from
                              Volume as a % of                        Posted Volume is more than .85% of Total
           Tier               Industry Customer       Rate per        Industry Customer Equity and ETF Option
                             Equity and Exchange      contract      Volume or for any NYSE American Market Maker
                            Traded Fund (``ETF'')                      participating in a Prepayment Program
                                Option Volume                                 pursuant to Section I.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................  0.00% to 0.15%........           $0.25  $0.23
2........................  >0.15% to 0.60%.......            0.22  0.18
3........................  >0.60% to 1.10%.......            0.14  0.08
4........................  >1.10% to 1.45%.......            0.10  0.05
5........................  >1.45% to 1.80%.......            0.07  0.04
6........................  >1.80%................            0.05  0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    The Exchange proposes to replace the current table that describes
the Sliding Scale with the table below, which modifies qualification
thresholds and associated transaction fees for all Electronic Marker
[sic] Maker volume:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Prepayment Program Participant
                                                                                Rates
                                Market Maker         Rate per        Rate per    -------------------------------
           Tier            Electronic ADV as a %   contract for    contract for      Rate per
                                  of TCADV           Non-Take       Take Volume    contract for      Rate per
                                                    Volume \1\                       Non-Take      contract for
                                                                                Volume \1\      Take Volume
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................  0.00% to 0.20%.......           $0.25           $0.25           $0.22           $0.24
2........................  >0.20% to 0.65%......            0.22            0.24            0.17            0.20
3........................  >0.65% to 1.40%......            0.12            0.17            0.08            0.11
4........................  >1.40% to 2.00%......            0.09            0.14            0.05            0.08
5........................  >2.00%...............            0.06            0.09            0.03            0.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to restate the volume thresholds in
terms of a Market Maker's average daily volume or ADV as a percent of
the TCADV, a defined term,\5\ which is mathematically equivalent to a
Market Maker's monthly total volume as a percent of the Industry
Customer equity and ETF Total Volume. This proposed change would add
clarity and internal consistency to the Fee Schedule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, supra note 4, Key Terms and Definitions
(defining TCADV as ``Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option
average daily volume. TCADV includes OCC calculated Customer volume
of all types, including Complex Order transactions and QCC
transactions, in equity and ETF options'').
    \6\ See, e.g., Fee Schedule, supra note 4, Section I.A. and I.E.
(similarly expressing qualification thresholds in terms of
percentage of TCADV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as shown in the table above, the Exchange proposes to:
     Increase the minimum volume necessary to achieve each
successive Tier;
     Differentiate the type of volume that qualifies for
specific rates by applying different rates depending on whether the
Market Maker volume is take or non-take volume; \7\ \8\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of the Sliding Scale, ``all eligible volume
that does not remove liquidity'' would be considered non-take
volume; whereas any volume that removes liquidity would be
considered take volume. '' See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.C.,
note 1. For example, any Market Maker transaction that interacts
with resting liquidity is take volume.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that other options exchanges similarly
differentiate fees based on maker-taker activity. See, e.g., MIAX
Options fee schedule, at p.1, available here, https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_12012017B.pdf (``Market Maker Sliding
Scale''); Cboe Exchange, Inc. fee schedule, at p. 3 available here,
http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf
(``Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Reduce the number of Tiers from 6 to 5.
    Third, because the Exchange will be offering different rates
depending on whether volume is make or take, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate as unnecessary the minimum volume threshold for posted volume
(of 0.85% of TCADV) to qualify for a reduced per contract rate. The
Exchange proposes to continue to provide reduced rates to Market Makers
that participate in the Prepayment Program.
    The proposed changes are designed to incent Market Makers to
transact more business on the Exchange, including by posting a more
meaningful percentage of TCADV, executing more take volume, and
committing to transact a certain amount of business on the Exchange by
enrolling in the Prepayment Program.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.C. See also Fee
Schedule, supra note 4, Section I.D. (Prepayment Program)
(describing the 1- and 3-Year Prepayment Programs, including
requisite timelines for committing and prepaying as well as various
conditions to opt out of the 3-Year Prepayment Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepayment Program
    The Exchange also proposes to update the Prepayment Programs that
it will offer beginning in 2018. In January 2015, the Exchange
introduced two Prepayment Programs--for a 1- or 3- year term--to allow
Market Makers to prepay a portion of the charges incurred for
transactions executed on the Exchange.\10\ In 2016, the Exchange
introduced a ``Balance of the Year'' program that allowed Market Makers
to commit to prepay a portion of their transaction charges for some
portion of the calendar year, for a maximum of three-quarters of the
year.\11\ The terms of the current 3-Year, and the subsequently
modified 1-Year, Prepayment Programs terminate at the end of 2017.\12\
The Exchange is proposing to modify the Prepayment Programs that it
offers beginning in 2018 to encourage broader participation by Market
Maker firms. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to eliminate reference
to the 3 Year Prepayment Program, which has expired, and to maintain
the 1 Year and Balance of the Year Prepayment Programs, as described
below.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74086 (January 16,
2015), 80 FR 3701 (January 23, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-4)
(introducing the prepayment programs).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79737 (January 4,
2016), 82 FR 3052 (January 10, 2017) (modifying the description of
the Prepayment Programs and introducing the Balance of the Year
program).
    \12\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.D (Prepayment Programs), supra
note 4.
    \13\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.D (Prepayment
Programs) (deleting all references to the 3 Year Prepayment Program,
including reference to early termination and the ability to opt out;
and updating references to 1-Year and Balance of the Year Prepayment
Programs to reflect 2018 calendar year and other program updates as
described herein).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to continue to offer the 1 Year Prepayment
Program, without altering any aspects of the Program, including
offering the same $3 million prepayment amount as was offered for
2017.\14\ Participants in the 1 Year Prepayment Program would continue
to qualify its Affiliated (or Appointed) OFP to be eligible to receive
the enhanced credit(s) under the American Customer Engagement (``ACE'')
Program, including revised credits as proposed herein (and discussed
further below).\15\ To enroll in the proposed 1 Year Prepayment
Program, a Market Maker would have to notify the Exchange by the last
business day before the start of the new (following) year and remit
payment to the Exchange by the last business day of January the
following year (i.e., the year in which the prepayments would be
applied). Thus, any Market Maker that would like to participate in the
1 Year Prepayment Program for 2018 should notify the Exchange of its
intent by December 29, 2017and remit the $3 million prepayment by
January 31, 2018.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.D.
    \15\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.E. (American Customer
Engagement (``ACE'') Program--Standard Options), supra note 4.
    \16\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.D (Prepayment
Programs) (modifying the description of the 1Year Prepayment
Programs to remove reference to a specific calendar year and instead
maintain requirement [sic] that Market Makers would [sic] the
Exchange of their commitment to the Program by sending an email the
Exchange at [email protected]).

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

    Next, the Exchange is proposing to continue to offer a ``Balance of
the Year'' Prepayment Program, without altering any material aspects of
the Program. The Exchange would continue to require the following
prepayments based on the quarter in which a Market Maker joined:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2nd Quarter     3rd Quarter     4th Quarter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepayment Amount and Payment Schedule..........................      $2,475,000      $1,800,000        $975,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the current Balance of the Year Prepayment Program,
a Market Maker that participates in the Balance of the Year Program
would receive a credit equal to its prepayment amount (i.e.,
$2,475,000; $1,800,000; or $975,000, respectively) toward certain fees
it incurs on the Exchange.\17\ As proposed, Marker [sic] Makers that
enroll in the Balance of the Year Program would be required to notify
the Exchange by the last business day before the start of the new
(following) quarter (e.g., to participate for three-quarters of the
year, notice must be given by the last business day of the first
quarter of that year, etc.).\18\ In addition, consistent with 2017,
participants must remit payment by the last business day in the first
month of the respective quarter (i.e., the quarter in which prepayments
will begin to apply). However, the Exchange proposes to remove
reference to specific dates, which were tied to prior calendar years,
to avoid having to revise the Fee Schedule on an annual basis. Thus, as
proposed, the deadlines to participate in the Balance of the Year
Prepayment Program for each quarter would be the last business day in
April, July and October, for the second, third and fourth quarter,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. Similarly, just as with the 1-Year Prepayment
Program, the Exchange would apply the prepayment as a credit against
certain charges incurred on the Exchange. Once the prepayment credit
has been exhausted, the Exchange would invoice the Market Maker at
the appropriate rates. In the event that a Market Maker does not
conduct sufficient activity to exhaust the entirety of their
prepayment credit within the calendar year, there would be no
refunds issued for any unused portion of their prepayment credit.
See id.
    \18\ See id. (providing that Market Makers would be required to
notify the Exchange of their commitment to the Program by sending an
email the Exchange at [email protected]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make clear that any prepayments
made pursuant to the 1 Year Prepayment Program 1 or the Balance of the
Year Prepayment Program would apply to transactions effected using the
BOLD Mechanism, pursuant to Section I.M. of the Fee Schedule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id. The Exchange notes that after introducing fees
associated with BOLD transactions in 2017, it modified various
aspects of the Fee Schedule to account for these fees. However, the
Exchange failed to make clear that payments under any of the
Prepayment Programs would count towards BOLD transactions and seeks
to correct this oversight with this proposed change. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Customer Engagement (``ACE'') Program
    Section I. E. of the Fee Schedule describes the Exchange's ACE
Program. The ACE Program features a base tier and five higher tiers
expressed as a percentage of TCADV \20\ and provides two alternative
methods by which Order Flow Providers (each an ``OFP'') may receive per
contract credits for Electronic Customer volume that the OFP, as agent,
submits to the Exchange.\21\ The Exchange is proposing to modify
certain credits offered in the ACE Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.E., supra note 4. The Exchange
also proposes to make a grammatical change to the second sentence of
the introductory paragraph by changing the word ``is'' to ``are,''
which should add clarity to the fee schedule. See proposed Fee
Schedule, Section I.E.
    \21\ The volume thresholds are based on an OFP's Customer volume
transacted Electronically as a percentage of TCADV as reported by
the OCC. See OCC Monthly Statistics Reports, available here, http://www.theocc.com/webapps/monthly-volume-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to delete the ACE credits for 3 Year
Enhanced Customer Volume Credits, and any references thereto, to
reflect that the 3 Year Prepayment Program has expired, as noted
above.\22\ The Exchange believes these changes would add clarity,
transparency and internal consistency to the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I. E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to modify the enhanced per contract
credit applicable to Customer Complex Orders for 1 Year and Balance of
the Year Prepayment Participants. Specially, the Exchange proposes to
reduce the credit for Tier 1 from $0.20 to $0.19 per contract, while
increasing the per contract credit for Tier 4 and 5, from $0.21 and
$0.23, respectively, to $0.22 and $0.24, respectively.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify the per contract credit
applicable to Simple Orders on Customer volume for Tiers 3, 4 and 5.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reduce the credit for Tier 3, 4,
and 5 from $0.19, $0.20, and $0.22, respectively, to $0.17, $0.19, and
$0.21, respectively. And, the Exchange proposes to increase the
enhanced per contract credit applied to Simple Orders on Customer
volume for Prepayment participants that qualify for Tier 5 from $0.23
to $0.24.
    The proposed changes to credits payable on Customer volume are
intended to encourage ATP Holders and their Affiliates and/or Appointed
parties to participate in the Prepayment Programs, while still
rewarding OFPs that direct significant amounts of Customer volume to
the Exchange with credits on transactions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\23\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\24\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sliding Scale
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the
Sliding Scale are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
for a number of reasons. First, the Sliding Scale is available to all
Market Makers and is based on the amount of business transacted on--and
is designed to attract greater volume to--the Exchange. In addition,
the elimination of the alternative basis to qualify for a reduced rate
by posting monthly volume of at least 0.85% TCADV (if not participating
in a Prepayment Program) is not unfairly discriminatory because Market
Makers that would like to receive a more favorable per contract rate
under the Sliding Scale have the option to commit to one of the
Prepayment Programs, which commitment increases liquidity on the
Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, all
Market Makers will be subject to the proposal to impose differing rates

depending on whether volume is make or take volume. The proposed
adjustments are designed to encourage Market Makers to commit to
directing their order flow to the Exchange, which would increase volume
and liquidity, to the benefit of all market participants by providing
more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Further, the proposed
Sliding Scale thresholds and rates are competitive with fees charged by
other exchanges and are designed to attract (and compete for) order
flow to the Exchange, which provides a greater opportunity for trading
by all market participants.\25\ In addition, the proposed changes,
which are designed to incent market participants to increase the orders
sent directly to the Exchange, should provide liquidity that supports
the quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency to the
benefit of all market participants. Finally, the Exchange notes that
other exchanges have established transaction fees for Market Makers
based on maker and taker activity.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See MIAX and Cboe fee schedules, supra note 8.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepayment Program
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the
Prepayment Programs are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for a number of reasons. First, all of the Prepayment
Programs offered on the Exchange are optional and Market Makers can
elect to participate (or elect not to participate). Given the
expiration of the 3 Year Prepayment Program, the Exchange believes that
the goals of the Prepayment Program continue to be served by continuing
to offer the 1 Year and Prepayment Program as well as the Balance of
the Year Program. The Exchange believes that continuing to offer these
Programs would provide Market Makers with the flexibility to join
annually or at various points in the year, which may encourage broader
participation in the Prepayment Programs. The Exchange anticipates that
the potential greater capital commitment and resulting liquidity on the
Exchange would benefit all market participants (including non-Market
Makers). Moreover, the Exchange notes that other options exchanges
likewise offer Prepayment Programs to market makers that may be joined
after the start of the year.\27\ The Exchange also notes that, similar
to the Sliding Scale, the Prepayment Program is designed to incent
Market Makers to commit to directing their order flow to the Exchange,
which would benefit all market participants by expanding liquidity,
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, even to those
market participants that are not eligible for the Programs. Thus, the
Exchange believes the Prepayment Program, as modified, is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Cboe fee schedule, supra note 8, at p. 18,
footnote 10 (a market maker may be permitted to pay a pro-rated
amount of the $2.4 million if, for example, they join the program
mid-year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to replace
specific dates with the term ``last business day'' removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by eliminating
redundant annual rule filings when the Exchange is not changing its
fees. The Exchange further believes that the proposal removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by
reducing potential confusion among market participants and the
investing public who may see a rule filing and mistake it for a fee
change when in fact a fee is not changing. The proposed change is also
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed
to add clarity to the Fee Schedule to the benefit of all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to make clear that
fees associated with BOLD transactions would be applied against
prepayments made under the Balance of the Year Program would add
clarity, transparency and internal consistency to the Fee Schedule.
ACE Program
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the ACE Program are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for a number of
reasons. First, the proposed changes to increase three of the credits
associated with participants in one of the Prepayment Programs are
designed to incent market participants to increase the orders sent
directly to the Exchange and therefore provide liquidity that supports
the quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency to the
benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fee change would directly relate to the activity of a Market
Maker and the activity of an affiliated ATP Holder on the Exchange,
thereby encouraging increased trading activity. The Exchange believes
that the proposal to amend the credits associated with various Tiers of
the ACE Program is reasonable because it provides ATP Holders
affiliated with an NYSE American Options Market Maker with additional
incentives to participate in the Prepayment Program. The Exchange
believes that the proposal to slightly reduce the credits for Simple
Orders not associated with participants in one of the Prepayment
Programs are likewise reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because such credits are within the range offered by
competing options exchanges.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id., Volume Incentive Program, at p. 3 (offering per
contracts credits ranging from $0.09-$0.14 for simple orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed grammatical change (see supra note 19) is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed
to add clarity to the Fee Schedule to the benefit of all market
participants.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\29\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed
changes relating to the Sliding Scale, the Prepayment Program, and the
ACE Program may increase both intermarket and intramarket competition
by incenting participants to direct their orders to the Exchange, which
would enhance the quality of quoting and may increase the volume of
contracts traded on the Exchange. To the extent that there is an
additional competitive burden on non-NYSE American Market Makers, the
Exchange believes that this is appropriate because Market Makers have
heightened obligations that other market participants do not and the
proposal should incent market participants to direct additional order
flow to the Exchange, and thus provide additional liquidity that
enhances the quality of its markets and increases the volume of
contracts traded here. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all
of the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved
market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction
volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow
directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and
improve competition on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many
of which offer the same products, implementing programs to attract
order flow similar to the ones being proposed in this filing, are
consistent with the above-mentioned goals of the Act. The

Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \30\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \31\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \32\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2017-42 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-NYSEAMER-2017-42. 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-NYSEAMER-2017-42 and should be submitted
on or before February 8, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00723 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69411-69412]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

DATE AND TIME: November 21, 2013, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.

    Note:  Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

     999th--Meeting, Regular Meeting, November 21, 2013, 10:00 a.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Item No.            Docket No.                 Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Administrative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1..................         AD02-1-000  Agency Business Matters.
A-2..................         AD02-7-000  Customer Matters, Reliability,
                                           Security and Market
                                           Operations.
A-3..................        AD07-13-006  2013 Report on Enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Electric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1..................         RM13-2-000  Small Generator
                                           Interconnection Agreements
                                           and Procedures.
E-2..................         RM13-5-000  Version 5 Critical
                                           Infrastructure Protection
                                           Reliability Standards.
E-3..................        RM13-12-000  Monitoring System Conditions--
                                           Transmission Operations
                                           Reliability Standard.
                             RM13-14-000  Transmission Operations
                                           Reliability Standards.
                             RM13-15-000  Interconnection Reliability
                                           Operations and Coordination
                                           Reliability Standards.
E-4..................         RM13-8-000  Electric Reliability
                                           Organization Proposal to
                                           Retire Requirements in
                                           Reliability Standards.
E-5..................         NJ12-7-000  Bonneville Power
                                           Administration.
                             NJ12-13-000
E-6..................        EL12-98-000  Hudson Transmission Partners,
                                           LLC v. New York Independent
                                           System Operator, Inc.
E-7..................            OMITTED  ..............................
E-8..................            OMITTED  ..............................
E-9..................            OMITTED  ..............................
E-10.................        RM13-13-000  Regional Reliability Standard
                                           BAL-002-WECC-2--Contingency
                                           Reserve.
E-11.................         OA13-8-000  Genesis Solar, LLC.
E-12.................      ER13-2412-000  Trans Bay Cable LLC.
E-13.................      ER13-1612-000  Arizona Public Service
                                           Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1..................       RP09-487-004  High Island Offshore System,
                                           L.L.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hydro
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1..................        P-12569-004  Public Utility District No. 1
                                           of Okanogan County,
                                           Washington.
H-2..................         P-2662-012  FirstLight Hydro Generating
                                           Company.
                             P-12968-001  City of Norwich Department of
                                           Public Utilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Certificates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1..................        RM12-11-000  Revisions to Auxiliary
                                           Installations, Replacement.
                             RM12-11-001  Facilities, and Siting and
                                           Maintenance Regulations.
C-2..................         CP13-8-000  Columbia Gas Transmission,
                                           LLC.
C-3..................        CP13-30-000  Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
                                           Company, LLC.

C-4..................       CP12-516-001  Discovery Gas Transmission
                                           LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: November 14, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It
also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2013-27750 Filed 11-15-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87720-87723]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27754]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2023-0375; EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663; FRL-11233-02-R8]

Air Plan Approval; Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of the portion of a Wyoming State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission addressing interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The ``good neighbor''
or ``interstate transport'' provision requires that each state's SIP
contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from within the state
from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. This requirement is part of
the broader set of ``infrastructure'' requirements, which are designed
to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on January 18, 2024.

ADDRESSES: There are two dockets supporting this action, EPA-R08-OAR-
2023-0375 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663. Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2023-0375
contains information specific to Wyoming, including the August 14, 2023
notice of proposed rulemaking that supports this final action. Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663 contains additional modeling files, emissions
inventory files, technical support documents, and other relevant
supporting documentation regarding interstate transport of emissions
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS which are being used to support this
action. All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the docket, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Uher, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-04,
109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On August 14, 2023 (88 FR 54998), the EPA proposed to approve the
interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 portions of Wyoming's January 3,
2019 submission. An explanation of the CAA requirements and the EPA's
reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed
rulemaking and will not be restated here. The public comment period for
the proposed approval ended on September 13, 2023. The EPA received
eight comment submissions on the proposed action, one of which was
submitted in error as it pertains to a rulemaking by a different
agency. Of the seven remaining submissions, six of the commenters were
in support of our proposed action, and one commenter (Sierra Club) was
opposed. A summary of the relevant comments and the EPA's responses are
provided below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Commenter PacifiCorp argued that the EPA lacks the
authority to withdraw and re-propose action on Wyoming's SIP, stating
that ``EPA does not have or need the authority to undertake the current
re-proposal to solicit additional record evidence when the existing
record is adequate and appropriate to approve Wyoming's SIP.'' The
commenter asserts that, because the information available to the EPA
(specifically the 2016v3 modeling) was also available to us when we did
not take final action on Wyoming's SIP (citing 88 FR 9336; Feb. 13,
2023), the EPA ``cannot artificially extend its action by deferral and
then re-propose to obtain more information.'' The commenter states that
the EPA did not provide a reason why a new rulemaking for Wyoming was
necessary when we were able to take final action on Minnesota and
Wisconsin's SIPs although our modeling-based determination had changed
between proposal and final. The commenter also states that ``EPA's re-
proposal unlawfully attempts to manipulate and unilaterally extend
EPA's statutorily-fixed deadlines for SIP actions'' because the CAA
deadline for final action on Wyoming's SIP had passed when the
commenter alleges we chose to not take final action on Wyoming's SIP.
Other commenters also noted that the EPA had exceeded our statutory
deadline for final action on Wyoming's SIP, and commenter Basin
Electric urged the EPA to finalize our proposed approval as
expeditiously as practicable because our delays had caused them
regulatory uncertainty.
    Response: These comments are not germane to the basis for the EPA's
action. Commenters repeat arguments that have been raised in a
challenge to the EPA's separate final action disapproving 21 other
states' interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
(88 FR 9336; Feb. 13, 2023).\1\ There is nothing unlawful or improper
in providing an additional opportunity for public comment when the EPA
finds, on the basis of updated modeling information, that a SIP
submission on which it had proposed disapproval, may be approved. This
is consistent with the EPA's approach in numerous prior interstate
transport SIP rulemakings.\2\ The EPA has responded to commenters'
legal arguments against the separate disapproval action in the Wyoming
v. EPA litigation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Wyoming et. al. v U.S. EPA, No. 23-9529, Doc.
0101108374342 (10th Cir. June 15, 2023).
    \2\ See, e.g., 84 FR 71854 (Dec. 30, 2019) and 87 FR 9545 (Feb.
22, 2022); 85 FR 12232 (Mar. 2, 2020) and 87 FR 9477 (Feb. 22,
2022).
    \3\ Wyoming et. al. v U.S. EPA, No. 23-9529, Doc.<PHONE_NUMBER>32
(10th Cir. July 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding comments that the EPA has exceeded our statutory
deadlines, the EPA is subject to a consent decree in Downwinders at
Risk v. EPA, No. 21-cv-03551 (N.D. Cal.) under which the

EPA has a deadline to take this final action of December 15, 2023. The
EPA is meeting that deadline.
    Comment: Commenter Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(WDEQ) requested that the EPA further expand the details of our
analysis specific to Wyoming's plan, to be consistent with EPA action
on other states' SIPs.
    Response: The EPA does not consider it necessary to provide further
detail on our analysis of Wyoming's SIP. A proposed analysis of
Wyoming's submission was provided in our May 24, 2022 proposed
disapproval.\4\ Because under the EPA's 2016v3 modeling Wyoming is not
projected to be linked to any out of state receptors in the 2023
analytic year above the 1 percent of NAAQS contribution threshold,
additional analysis is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 87 FR 31495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenter Basin Electric cited language from the EPA's
August 14, 2023 proposed approval which stated that the EPA did ``not
assess the data and analysis in Wyoming's submission, as EPA's updated
modeling corroborates Wyoming's conclusion that the State will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.'' The commenter asserted
that this served as an acknowledgement that the EPA ignored the
contents of Wyoming's SIP. The commenter stated that in doing so, the
EPA ``is ultimately attempting to transform what is appropriately a
state-specific assessment under the Good Neighbor Provision into a
uniform rule that requires each state to conform to EPA's vision of how
it believes states should address and analyze interstate ozone
transport,'' which the commenter argues ``exceeds the authority
delegated to EPA by Congress in the CAA.''
    Several commenters stated that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
EPA guidance provided the states broad discretion in developing their
interstate transport SIPs. Commenters Idaho Power Company (IPC) and
Mountain Cement Company (MCC) both asserted that the EPA has a more
limited, secondary role in reviewing SIP submittals for consistency
with the CAA, which explicitly states that the EPA ``shall approve'' a
state's plan so long as it is consistent with the statute. Commenters
argued that, in performing this limited oversight role, the EPA cannot
substitute its own judgment for that of the states, and in particular,
cannot ``force particular control measures on the states.''
    Response: As set forth in our prior proposal to disapprove
Wyoming's submission, the EPA did not ignore its contents. However, the
EPA need not address these issues in order to conclude that Wyoming's
SIP submission is approvable in light of the 2016v3 modeling. This is
consistent with numerous other approval actions the EPA has taken for
interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, where the
available modeling indicated that a state was not linked above a 1
percent of the NAAQS threshold to any out of state receptor. See 88 FR
9362 (citing approval actions). As for the remainder of the comments,
the EPA notes that they appear to be substantially at odds with the
statute and applicable case law. For the EPA's response to similar
comments on the separate Disapproval action (which we are not reopening
here), see 88 FR 9367-68.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that Wyoming's SIP had been
approvable before the release of the 2016v3 modeling, and that the
updated modeling only served to confirm the SIP's approvability.
Commenters MCC and IPC restated portions of the weight of evidence
analysis WDEQ included in their SIP submission, and asserted that this
analysis demonstrated that Wyoming met the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and was in line with EPA
guidance.
    Response: The EPA takes no final position on whether Wyoming's SIP
submission would have been approved in a counter-factual scenario in
which the 2016v3 modeling was not available. The EPA's prior views on
Wyoming's submission are stated in our now withdrawn May 24, 2022
proposal, and given the 2016v3 modeling, there is no need to finalize
that analysis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 87 FR 31495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenter Sierra Club requested that the EPA withdraw our
proposed approval of Wyoming's SIP and instead finalize the prior (and
now withdrawn) proposed disapproval of the same plan. The commenter
asserted that the EPA should have identified Weld County (Site ID
81230009) as a violating monitor due to its 2022 design value of 72
ppb, and because the 2016v3 modeling indicates a Wyoming contribution
of 0.72 ppb at this receptor in 2023, the EPA should consider this as
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that we should have identified the Weld
County monitor as a violating-monitor maintenance-only receptor. The
EPA considers monitoring sites with measured design values and 4th high
maximum daily 8-hour average (MDA8) ozone that exceed the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (i.e., greater than or equal to 71 ppb) based on certified 2021
and 2022 data to have the greatest risk of continuing to have a problem
attaining the standard in 2023, even when the modeling projects these
sites will attain. The Weld County site to which the commenter refers
has a certified 2022 4th high MDA8 of 70, which does not exceed the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\6\ Therefore, the EPA continues to find that this
monitor does not meet the criteria of a violating-monitor maintenance-
only receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Official 2021_2022 DVs_4th Highs.xlsx'' in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter urged the EPA to adopt and enforce the
strongest possible rule to reduce air pollution in Wyoming that may
threaten public health in Wyoming and other neighboring states.
    Response: This comment lacks sufficient specificity for the EPA to
respond.
    Comment: Commenters WDEQ and PacifiCorp both asserted that the
EPA's action on Wyoming's interstate transport SIP was a locally or
regionally applicable action, rather than a nationally applicable
action. Both commenters argued that under section 307(b)(1), the
appropriate venue depends on whether the EPA's action is ``nationally
applicable'' or ``locally or regionally applicable,'' stating that the
EPA Region 8's proposed action on Wyoming's SIP is a ``purely local
action'' and an ``indisputably regional action.''
    Response: The EPA agrees that this is a locally or regionally
applicable action. However, under CAA section 307(b)(1), any locally or
regionally applicable action that is based on one or more
determinations of nationwide scope or effect made and published by the
EPA may be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit. For the reasons
provided in section IV. of this preamble, the Administrator finds that
this action is based on multiple determinations of nationwide scope or
effect within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1) and is hereby
publishing that finding. While this final rule applies only to Wyoming,
the EPA evaluated Wyoming's SIP based on a common core of nationwide
policy judgments and technical analysis concerning the interstate
transport of ozone, including the same determinations made in
evaluating every other state's obligations under the

Good Neighbor Provision for the 2015 Ozone Standard.\7\ Ozone transport
presents a ``collective contribution'' challenge in which many smaller
contributors across a broad region combine to generate a downwind air
quality problem.\8\ Given the ``interdependent nature of interstate
pollution transport,'' the EPA finds it critically important to employ
``a consistent set of policy judgments across all states for purposes
of evaluating interstate transport obligations,'' \9\ including
Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 88 FR 9380.
    \8\ Id. at 9342.
    \9\ Id. at 9339, 9365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section IV. identifies the specific determinations of nationwide
scope or effect that underlie this action.

III. Final Action

    Based on the EPA's evaluation of the impact of air emissions from
Wyoming to downwind states using 2023 analytic year modeling as
described in our August 14, 2023 proposed rulemaking, the EPA is
approving Wyoming's January 3, 2019 SIP submission as meeting the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' Wyoming did not
evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submission; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
    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. 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).
    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the D.C. Circuit: (i) when the agency action
consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final
actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is
locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such
action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based
on such a determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final
actions, the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion to decide
whether to invoke the exception in (ii).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that an action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator takes into account a
number of policy considerations, including his judgment balancing
the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's authoritative
centralized review versus allowing development of the issue in other
contexts and the best use of agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to
him under the CAA to make and publish a finding that this final action
(to the extent a court finds the action to be locally or regionally
applicable) is based on a determination of ``nationwide scope or
effect'' within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). Through this
rulemaking action (in conjunction with a series of related actions on
other SIP submissions for the same CAA obligations), the EPA interprets
and applies section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS based on a common core of nationwide policy judgments and
technical analysis concerning the interstate transport of pollutants
throughout the continental

U.S. The EPA relies on a single set of updated, 2016-base year
photochemical grid modeling results for the year 2023 as the primary
basis for its assessment of air quality conditions and contributions at
steps 1 and 2 of the EPA's 4-step framework for assessing good neighbor
obligations. The EPA has selected nationally uniform analytic years for
its analysis under the 4-step framework and is applying a nationally
uniform approach to nonattainment and maintenance receptors and a
nationally uniform approach to contribution threshold analysis.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Administrator finds that this action on the State
of Wyoming's SIP submission is based on several determinations of
nationwide scope or effect, including his determination: (1) that use
of the same 2023 analytical year air quality modeling (2016v3) and
monitoring data that were used to define all other states' good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is appropriate for
evaluating Wyoming's contribution in this action; (2) that it is
appropriate to use the EPA's nationwide methodology for identifying
nonattainment and maintenance receptors, including ``violating
monitor'' maintenance-only receptors, using the 2016v3 modeling and
recent monitoring data; (3) that it is appropriate to use the EPA's
nationwide methodology for calculating states' contribution levels to
out of state receptors in calculating Wyoming's impact; and (4) that a
conclusion that a state's impact on all out of state receptors is less
than 1 percent of the NAAQS (using the data and methodologies described
in items (1) through (3)) is sufficient to approve the state's good
neighbor SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, without further
analysis.
    These determinations lie at the core of this final action and
ensure consistency and equity in the treatment of all states in
addressing the multistate problem of interstate ozone pollution under
the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These
determinations are not related to the particularities of the emissions
sources in Wyoming or any specific state.
    For these reasons, the Administrator is exercising the complete
discretion afforded to him under the CAA and hereby makes and publishes
a finding that this action is based on multiple determinations of
nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1).
Therefore, any petitions for review of this action must be filed in the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 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 ZZ--Wyoming

0
2. In Sec.  52.2620, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``(35) XXXV'' in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State       EPA effective     Final rule
           Rule No.               Rule title    effective date       date        citation/date       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(35) XXXV....................  Interstate             1/3/2019       1/18/2024  [insert Federal  ...............
                                transport SIP                                    Register
                                for section                                      citation], 12/
                                110(a)(2)(D)(i                                   19/2024.
                                )(I) prongs 1
                                and 2 for the
                                2015 Ozone
                                NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-27754 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 96361-96362]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3142; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-003-AD;
Amendment 39-18728; AD 2016-25-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to certain The
Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. As published, the amendment
number specified in the preamble and regulatory text is incorrect. This
document corrects that error. In all other respects, the original
document remains the same.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 20, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 20,
2017 (81 FR 90955, December 16, 2016).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3142.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airworthiness Directive 2016-25-02 (81 FR
90955, December 16, 2016), requires installing markers to limit the
hydraulic system fluid used to a specific brand, doing hydraulic fluid
tests of the hydraulic systems, replacing hydraulic system fluid if
necessary, and doing all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8
airplanes.

Need for the Correction

    As published, the amendment number specified in the preamble and
regulatory text is incorrect. The incorrectly specified number was
Amendment 39-18725; the correct number is Amendment 39-18728.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-
00, Issue 002, dated June 13, 2016. This service information describes
procedures for installing markers to limit the hydraulic system fluid
used to a specific brand, doing hydraulic fluid tests of the hydraulic
systems, replacing the hydraulic system fluid if necessary, and related
investigative and corrective actions. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Correction of Publication

    This document corrects an error and correctly adds the AD as an
amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or
regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire
rule in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains January 20, 2017.
    Since this action only corrects an amendment number, it has no
adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person.
Therefore, we have determined that notice and public procedures are
unnecessary.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Correction

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Corrected]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-25-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18728; Docket No. FAA-
2015-3142; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-003-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 20, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 002, dated June
13, 2016.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Control Systems.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the accumulation of very fine
particle deposits in the power control unit (PCU) electro-hydraulic
servo valves (EHSVs) used in the flight control system; this
accumulation caused degraded performance due to reduced EHSV
internal hydraulic supply pressures, resulting in the display of PCU
fault status messages from the engine indication and crew alerting
system (EICAS). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight
control hydraulic PCUs, which could lead to reduced controllability
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Marker Installation

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install
markers to allow servicing

of hydraulic systems with only HyJet V hydraulic fluid, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 002, dated June 13,
2016.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 002, dated June 13, 2016,
refers to Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB290022-00, Issue 001,
dated September 4, 2014, as an additional source of guidance for
installing markers to allow servicing of hydraulic systems with only
HyJet V hydraulic fluid.

    Note 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Task 1, Figure 1, and Task
2, Figure 1, of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB290022-00,
Issue 001, dated September 4, 2014, identify P/N 710Z7290-9##ALT1
for the left and right engine diagonal braces; however, the correct
P/N is 710Z7290-9 with no ##ALT suffix.

(h) Fluid Tests of the Left, Right, and Center Hydraulic Systems

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-
81205-SB270026-00, Issue 002, dated June 13, 2016, as Group 1,
Configuration 2, Group 2: Within 36 months after the effective date
of this AD, do hydraulic fluid tests of the left, right, and center
hydraulic systems, replace the hydraulic system fluid, if necessary,
and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 002, dated June 13,
2016. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions
within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 001, dated November 25, 2014.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(j)(3)(i) and (j)(3)(ii) apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then
the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.
    (4) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Fnu Winarto,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:
425-917-6659; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(4) and (l)(5) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 20, 2017 (81 FR 90955, December 16, 2016).
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue
002, dated June 13, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 22, 2016.
Robert D. Breneman,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-31693 Filed 12-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76437-76438]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Type
Certification Procedures for Changed Products

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. 14 CFR part 21 may require applicants to demonstrate
compliance with the latest regulations in effect on the date of
application for amended Type Certificates (TC) or a Supplemental TCs
for aeronautical products.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0657.
    Title: Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products.

    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR part 21 requires that, with certain exceptions,
all aviation product changes comply with the latest airworthiness
standards when determining the certification basis for aeronautical
products. This process is intended to increase safety by applying the
latest regulations where practicable. A certification application
request, in letter form, and a supporting data package is made to the
appropriate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aircraft
Certification Office by an aircraft/product manufacturer/modifier.
    Respondents: Approximately 2,558 manufacturers/modifiers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 7.35 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 18,815 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 17, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-29891 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		September 18, 2014

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	EPA Region 1

SUBJECT:	June 10, 2014, Meeting with New England State Staff Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on June 10, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. Discussion covered the recently proposed guidelines for existing sources and associated outreach.

ATTENDEES
Curt Spalding, EPA
Cynthia Greene, EPA
John Kassel, Conservation Law Foundation
Ken Kimmell, Union of Concerned Scientists
Barbara Erickson, The Trustees of Reservations
Henry Tepper, Mass Audubon
Kevin Essignton, The Trust for Public Land
Wayne Klockner, The Nature Conservancy
Mindy Lubber, Ceres
John Judge, Appalachian Mountain Club


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51692-51693]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0275]

Imposition of Conditions of Entry on Vessels Arriving to the
United States From Certain Ports in the Republic of Iraq

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that it will impose conditions of
entry on vessels arriving from certain ports in the Republic of Iraq.
Conditions of entry are intended to protect the United States from
vessels arriving from countries that have been found to have deficient
anti-terrorism port measures in place.

DATES: The policy announced in this notice will become effective
October 26, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Juliet Hudson, International Port Security Evaluation
Division, United States Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The authority for this notice is 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 70110,
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(97.f). As
delegated, section 70110(a) authorizes the Coast Guard to impose
conditions of entry on vessels arriving in U.S. waters from ports that
the Coast Guard has found to have deficient anti-terrorism measures.
    On August 21, 2017, the Coast Guard found that the Republic of Iraq
failed to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures in its ports and
that its designated authority's oversight, access control, security
monitoring, security training programs, and security plans drills and
exercises are all deficient.
    On October 14, 2017, as required by 46 U.S.C. 70109, the Republic
of Iraq was notified of this determination, provided recommendations
for improving antiterrorism measures, and given 90 days to respond. In
January 2018, the Coast Guard re-visited the Republic of Iraq to review
Iraq's progress on correcting the security deficiencies. The Coast
Guard determined that Iraq failed to maintain effective anti-terrorism
measures with the exeptions of three port facilities: The Al-Basrah Oil
Terminal, the Khor Al Amaya Oil Terminal and Al Maqal Terminal 14 (also
known as the North America Western Asia Holdings Facility).
    Accordingly, beginning October 26, 2018, the conditions of entry
shown in Table 1 will apply to any vessel that visited a port in the
Republic of Iraq in its last five port calls, with the exception of the
ports the Al-Basrah Oil Terminal, the Khor Al Amaya Oil Terminal, and
Al Maqal Terminal 14.

 Table 1--Conditions of Entry for Vessels Visiting Ports in the Republic
                                 of Iraq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          No.                           Each vessel must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................  Implement measures per the vessel's security
                         plan equivalent to Security Level 2 while in a
                         port in the Republic of Iraq. As defined in the
                         ISPS Code and incorporated herein, ``Security
                         Level 2'' refers to the ``level for which
                         appropriate additional protective security
                         measures shall be maintained for a period of
                         time as a result of heightened risk of a
                         security incident.''
2.....................  Ensure that each access point to the vessel is
                         guarded and that the guards have total
                         visibility of the exterior (both landside and
                         waterside) of the vessel while the vessel is in
                         ports in the Republic of Iraq.

3.....................  Guards may be provided by the vessel's crew;
                         however, additional crewmembers should be
                         placed on the vessel if necessary to ensure
                         that limits on maximum hours of work are not
                         exceeded and/or minimum hours of rest are met,
                         or provided by outside security forces approved
                         by the vessel's master and Company Security
                         Officer. As defined in the ISPS Code and
                         incorporated herein, ``Company Security
                         Officer'' refers to the ``person designated by
                         the Company for ensuring that a ship security
                         assessment is carried out; that a ship security
                         plan is developed, submitted for approval, and
                         thereafter implemented and maintained and for
                         liaison with port facility security officers
                         and the ship security officer.''
4.....................  Attempt to execute a Declaration of Security
                         while in a port in the Republic of Iraq.
5.....................  Log all security actions in the vessel's
                         security records.
6.....................  Report actions taken to the cognizant Coast
                         Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) prior to
                         arrival into U.S. waters.
7.....................  In addition, based on the findings of the Coast
                         Guard boarding or examination, the vessel may
                         be required to ensure that each access point to
                         the vessel is guarded by armed, private
                         security guards and that they have total
                         visibility of the exterior (both landside and
                         waterside) of the vessel while in U.S. ports.
                         The number and position of the guards has to be
                         acceptable to the cognizant COTP prior to the
                         vessel's arrival.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following countries do not maintain effective anti-terrorism
measures in their ports and are therefore subject to conditions of
entry: The Republic of Iraq, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, C[ocirc]te
d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Liberia,
Libya, Madagascar, Micronesia, Nauru, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe,
Syria, Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. The current Port Security
Advisory is available at: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/International-Domestic-Port-Assessment/.

    Dated: September 27, 2018.
Daniel B. Abel,
Deputy Commandant for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2018-22291 Filed 10-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P