[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44071-44073]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18498]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64905; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Options Rule 6.96 To Make Changes Necessary To Allow Its Routing Broker
To Operate Consistent With the Requirements of Rule 15c3-5 Under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

July 18, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that July 13, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 amend NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96 to make
changes necessary to allow its Routing Broker to operate consistent
with the requirements of Rule 15c3-5 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Act'').\4\ The text of the proposed rule change is available
at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96 to
permit its Routing Broker to operate consistent with the requirements
of SEC Rule 15c3-5.\5\ Specifically, the proposed rule change would
allow the Routing Broker, in its sole discretion, to reject orders
pursuant to risk management controls and supervisory procedures
maintained by the Routing Broker pursuant to SEC Rule 15c3-5. The
Exchange is proposing substantially similar rule changes for its
equities market, and the Exchange's affiliates, New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), also are proposing
substantially similar rule changes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.1A(a)(15) defines ``Routing
Broker'' as ``the broker-dealer affiliate of NYSE Arca, Inc. and/or
any other non-affiliate that acts as a facility of NYSE Arca, Inc.
for routing orders entered into OX of OTP Holders, OTP Firms and OTP
Firms' Sponsored Participants to other Market Centers for execution
whenever such routing is required by NYSE Arca Rules.''
    \6\ See SR-NYSEArca-2011-49, SR-NYSE-2011-34, SR-NYSEAmex-2011-
52 (equities), and SR-NYSEAmex-2011-53 (options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Archipelago Securities LLC (``Arca Securities'') currently is the
primary outbound Routing Broker for the Exchange. The outbound routing
function for the Exchange is governed by NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96.
NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96(a)(1) currently provides that the Routing
Broker cannot change the terms of an order or the routing instructions,
nor can it exercise any discretion about where to route an order.
    On November 3, 2010, the Commission adopted SEC Rule 15c3-5,\7\
pursuant to which, among other things, broker-dealers providing market
access are required to implement certain pre-order entry checks in
order to manage the financial, regulatory, and other risks associated
with providing their customers with market access. In anticipation of
the upcoming July 14, 2011 compliance date for SEC Rule 15c3-5, the
Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96 to describe
the manner in which the Routing Broker will handle routable orders
consistent with SEC Rule 15c3-5.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63241 (November 3,
2010), 75 FR 69792 (November 15, 2010) (File No. S7-03-10).
    \8\ The Commission extended the compliance date to November 30,
2011 for all of the requirements for fixed income securities and the
requirements of SEC Rule 15c3-5(c)(1)(i) for all securities. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64748 (June 27, 2011), 76 FR
38293 (June 30, 2011) (File No. S7-03-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt NYSE Arca Options Rule
6.96(a)(1)(B) to provide that, in the Routing Broker's sole discretion,
pursuant to risk management controls and supervisory procedures
maintained by the Routing Broker pursuant to SEC Rule 15c3-5, the
Routing Broker may reject any order or series of orders as necessary to
manage the financial, regulatory, and other risks of the Routing
Broker(s) providing ``market access,'' as that term is defined in SEC
Rule 15c3-5(a)(1).\9\ The Routing Broker's policies and procedures for
compliance with SEC Rule 15c3-5 will address two circumstances: (1)
When the Routing Broker routes orders on behalf of the Exchange for the
purpose of accessing other trading centers with protected quotations in
compliance with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the Act \10\ for ``NMS
stocks'' (as that term is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS),\11\
or in compliance with a national market system plan for listed options
(``exempt orders''); and (2) when the Routing Broker routes orders on

behalf of the Exchange for any other purpose, including pursuant to the
terms of an order type adopted by the Exchange or pursuant to a routing
strategy through which the Routing Broker routes orders to market
centers that are not posting ``protected quotations'' (as that term is
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS) \12\ (``non-exempt orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The existing text of NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96(a)(1) would
be renumbered as NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.96(a)(1)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.600(47).
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.600(58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to exempt orders, SEC Rule 15c3-5(b) provides that a
broker-dealer that routes orders on behalf of an exchange for the
purpose of accessing other trading centers with protected quotations in
compliance with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS for NMS stocks, or in
compliance with a national market system plan for listed options, is
subject only to the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rule.
SEC Rule 15c3-5(c)(1)(ii) provides that the risk management controls
and supervisory procedures required by the Rule must include elements
reasonably designed to prevent the entry of erroneous orders, by
rejecting orders that exceed appropriate price or size parameters, on
an order-by-order basis or over a short period of time, or that
indicate duplicative orders. Accordingly, for exempt orders, the
Routing Broker will reject any order or series of orders that it
determines, in its sole discretion, to be erroneous or duplicative.
Currently, the only orders that the Routing Broker routes on behalf of
the Exchange are exempt orders.
    With respect to non-exempt orders, all of the requirements of SEC
Rule 15c3-5 would apply to orders that the Routing Broker routes on
behalf of the Exchange, and the proposed rule change is intended to
provide the Routing Broker with authority to reject such orders as
necessary to comply with SEC Rule 15c3-5, as may be necessary in the
future. In this regard, the risk management controls and supervisory
procedures of the Routing Broker would include, as applicable, controls
to prevent the entry of orders that exceed appropriate pre-set credit
or capital thresholds in the aggregate for each customer and the
broker-dealer and, where appropriate, more finely-tuned by sector,
security, or otherwise by rejecting orders if such orders would exceed
the applicable credit or capital thresholds.\13\ In addition, the risk
management controls and supervisory procedures of the Routing Broker
would be reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable
regulatory requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5(c)(1)(i).
    \14\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\15\ In particular,
the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\
because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule is consistent with the requirements of the Act because the change
is necessary for the Exchange's Routing Broker to comply with SEC Rule
15c3-5. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes will
benefit ETP Holders of the Exchange because it provides clarity on the
procedures employed by the Routing Broker consistent with SEC Rule
15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\19\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \20\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay will allow Arca Securities to comply
with Rule 15c3-5 under the Act by July 14, 2011; \21\ the compliance
date for Rule 15c3-5. For this reason, the Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, and designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-50 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-50. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use

only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE Arca's principal office and on
its Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-50 and should be submitted
on or before August 12, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18498 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24012-24013]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 308-005]

PacifiCorp Energy; Notice of Intent to File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing
Process, and Scoping; Request For Comments On the Pad and Scoping
Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 308-005.
    c. Date Filed: February 23, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: PacifiCorp Energy.
    e. Name of Project: Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the East and West Forks of the Wallowa River and
Royal Purple Creek in Wallowa County, Oregon. The project occupies 12.1
acres of federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Russ Howison, Licensing Project Manager,
PacifiCorp Energy, 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 1500, Portland, OR 97232.
    i. FERC Contact: Matt Cutlip at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o, below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402 and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating PacifiCorp Energy as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. PacifiCorp Energy filed with the Commission a Pre-Application
Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule),
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
Documents 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. 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.
    All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the
project name (Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project) and number (P-308-
005), and bear the appropriate heading: ``Comments on Pre-Application
Document,'' ``Study Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping Document 1,''
``Request for Cooperating Agency Status,'' or ``Communications to and
from Commission Staff.'' Any individual or entity interested in
submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency
requesting cooperating status must do so by June 23, 2011.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2011,
    Time: 10:30 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
    Location: Best Western Rama Inn & Suites, 1200 Highland Avenue,
Enterprise, OR 97828.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2011.
    Time: 7 p.m.
    Location: Best Western Rama Inn & Suites, 1200 Highland Avenue,
Enterprise, OR 97828.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be
available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions
for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written
comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a

revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues,
identified through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

    An environmental site review is typically held in conjunction with
the scoping meeting. However, anticipating that access to some project
facilities would be limited by adverse weather and access conditions,
the licensee hosted a project environmental site review on September
16, 2010. The environmental site review was noticed by the Commission
on August 18, 2010, and attended by Commission staff on September 16,
2010. For these reasons, the Commission will not host its own
environmental site review in conjunction with its NEPA scoping meeting.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public records of the project.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10313 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 42761]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0057]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments of
a Previously Approved Information Collection: Procedures for
Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and comments. A Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on renewing the
same information collection was published on April 13, 2011 [76 FR
20805]. There were no comments to the docket.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bohdan Baczara, Office of Drug and
Alcohol Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W62-317,
Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0529.
    Title: Procedures for Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a Previously Approved Information
Collection.
    Background: Under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act
of 1991, DOT is required to implement a drug and alcohol testing
program in various transportation-related industries. This specific
requirement is elaborated in 49 CFR part 40, Procedures for
Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. This
request for a renewal of the information collection for the program
includes 43 burden items among which are the U.S. Department of
Transportation Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) and the DOT Drug and Alcohol
Testing Management Information System (MIS) Data Collection Form. The
ATF includes the employee's name, the type of test taken, the date of
the test, and the name of the employer. Custody and control is
essential to the basic purpose of the alcohol testing program. Data on
each test conducted, including test results, are necessary to document
tests conducted and actions taken to ensure safety in the workplace.
    The MIS form includes employer specific drug and alcohol testing
information such as the reason for the test and the cumulative number
of positive, negative and refusal test results. The MIS data is used by
each of the affected DOT Agencies (i.e., Federal Aviation
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) and the United
States Coast Guard when calculating their random testing rates.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The information will be used by
transportation employers, Department representatives, and a variety of
service agents. Estimated total number of respondents is 2,620,309.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 5,692,496.
    Frequency: The information will be collected annually.
    Annual Estimated Total Number Burden Hours: 584,841.
    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 the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 12, 2011.

    Authority and Issuance.
Patricia Lawton,
DOT PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-18120 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R03-OW-2009-0985; FRL -                         ]

Announcement to Extend the Recommended Determination Preparation Period
for the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine, Logan County, West Virginia.

AGENCY:  	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  	Announcement of Extension.

SUMMARY: EPA’s regulations require that the Regional Administrator
either withdraw the Spruce No. 1 Proposed Determination or prepare a
Recommended Determination within 30 days after the conclusion of the
public hearing (40 CFR 231.5(a)). However, in order to allow full
consideration of the extensive record, including over 4000 public
comments we received, EPA finds there is good cause to extend the time
period provided in 40 CFR 231.5(a) until September 24, 2010. This time
extension was made under authority of 40 CFR 231.8, which allows for
such extensions upon a showing of good cause.

Dated: ____________     				________/s/_______________

							William C. Early

							Acting Regional Administrator

Region III

 PAGE

 PAGE   82


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41059-41060]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16426]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0525; FRL 9532-7]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Health-Effects Research Requirements for Manufacturers (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Registration of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Health-Effects Research Requirements for Manufacturers
(Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 1696.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0297) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through August 31, 2013. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (78 FR 11869) on February 20, 2013 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection for
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 8,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0525, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James W. Caldwell, Compliance

Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6406J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2802; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov on in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For further information
about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: In accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 79,
subparts A, B, C and D, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives,
manufacturers (including importers) of motor-vehicle gasoline, motor-
vehicle diesel fuel and additives for those fuels are required to have
these products registered by the EPA prior to their introduction into
commerce. Registration involves providing a chemical description of the
fuel or additive and certain technical, marketing, and health-effects
information. The development of health-effects data, as required by 40
CFR part 79, subpart F, is the subject of this ICR. The health-effects
data will be used to determine if there are any products which have
evaporative or combustion emissions that may pose an unreasonable risk
to public health, thus meriting further investigation and potential
regulation. This information is required for specific groups of fuels
and additives as defined in the regulations.
    Manufacturers may perform the research independently or may join
with other manufacturers to share in the costs for each applicable
group. Several research consortiums (groups of manufacturers) have been
formed. The largest consortium, organized by the American Petroleum
Institute (API), represents most of the manufacturers of baseline
gasoline, baseline diesel fuel, baseline fuel additives, and the
prominent non-baseline oxygenated additives for gasoline. The research
is structured into three tiers of requirements for each group. Tier 1
requires an emissions characterization and a literature search for
information on the health effects of those emissions. Voluminous Tier 1
data for gasoline and diesel fuel were submitted by API and others in
1997. Tier 1 data have been submitted for biodiesel, water/diesel
emulsions, several atypical additives, and renewable gasoline and
diesel fuels. Tier 2 requires short-term inhalation exposures of
laboratory animals to emissions to screen for adverse health effects.
Tier 2 data have been submitted for baseline diesel, biodiesel, and
water/diesel emulsions. Alternative Tier 2 testing can be required in
lieu of standard Tier 2 testing if EPA concludes that such testing
would be more appropriate. EPA reached that conclusion with respect to
gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends, and alternative requirements
were established for the API consortium for baseline gasoline and six
gasoline-oxygenate blends. Alternative Tier 2 requirements have also
been established for the manganese additive MMT manufactured by the
Afton Chemical Corporation (formerly the Ethyl Corporation). Tier 3
provides for follow-up research, at EPA's discretion, when remaining
uncertainties as to the significance of observed health effects,
welfare effects, and/or emissions exposures from a fuel or fuel/
additive mixture interfere with EPA's ability to make reasonable
estimates of the potential risks posed by emissions from a fuel or
additive. To date, EPA has not imposed any Tier 3 requirements. Under
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act, (1) submission of the health-effects
information is necessary for a manufacturer to obtain registration of a
motor-vehicle gasoline, diesel fuel, or fuel additive, and thus be
allowed to introduce that product into commerce, and (2) the
information shall not be considered confidential.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of motor-vehicle
gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel fuel, and additives for those fuels.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory per 40 CFR part 79.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Burden: 19,200 hours per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total Estimated Cost: $2,078,280 per year, which includes $537,000
in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease 2,000 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This decrease is due to the completion of a testing program
included in the previous ICR.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-16426 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53702-53703]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18698]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0230; FRL-9602-01-R9]

Air Plans; Arizona; Revised Format for Materials Incorporated by
Reference; Correcting Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 23, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued a final rule titled ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Arizona; Revised Format for Materials
Incorporated by Reference.'' That publication inadvertently omitted an
entry for a regulation approved as part of the Maricopa County portion
of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) and contained certain
other errors. The EPA is proposing to correct this omission and to
correct the other errors. The regulations affected by this correcting
amendment have all been previously submitted by the State of Arizona
and approved by the EPA.

DATES: Comments from be received on or before October 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0230 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA

94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean the EPA. In the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are correcting the
omission of the Maricopa County rule and correcting the other errors in
a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this
error correction action is not controversial. If we receive adverse
comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule and address the comments in a subsequent action based on
this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: August 24, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-18698 Filed 8-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 32929-32931]
[DOCID:fr14jn07-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55880; File No. SR-Amex-2007-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Adoption of
Market Data Fees for AMEX Real-Time Trade Price Service

June 8, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 18, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Amex.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule changes from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish a one-year pilot program to
disseminate AMEX Real-Time Trade Prices, a new Amex-only market data
service that allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis last
sale prices of transactions that take place on the Exchange (``AMEX
Trade Prices'') and to establish a flat monthly fee for that service.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at Amex, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.amex.com.

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

    In filings with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments received on the proposed rule change. The text
of these 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 aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, Amex provides real-time last-sale information for
transactions executed on the Exchange to a Securities Information
Processor known as the Consolidated Tape Association's (``CTA'')
Network B. Amex's last-sale information is consolidated with the last-
sale information generated by other markets trading its securities and
is disseminated by CTA to market data vendors. The revenue generated by
the dissemination of consolidated last-sale information is shared among
the CTA participants in accordance with the CTA Plan. The CTA Plan also
allows, free of charge, the dissemination of 20-minute delayed
consolidated last-sale data to market data vendors. The real-time
consolidated last-sale data is used by industry professionals to make
trading and order routing decisions. Rule 603(c)(1) of Regulation NMS
specifies that only consolidated data be used to support trading and
order routing functionality. On the other hand, casual investors have
traditionally relied upon the free 20-minute delayed consolidated last-
sale data to ``get a feel'' for the market in a security or to price a
portfolio.
    The Exchange now proposes to establish a program in which it would
allow the redistribution of Amex-only last-sale prices on a real-time
basis. The service would be known as the AMEX Real-Time Trade Price
service and provide the last-sale prices of transactions that take
place on the Exchange. During the pilot program, the AMEX Real-Time
Trade Price service would allow Internet service providers, traditional
market data vendors, and others ``AMEX-Only Vendors'' to make available
AMEX Trade Prices on a real-time basis.\3\ The AMEX Real-Time Trade
Price information would include last-sale prices for all securities
that are traded on AEMI. It would include prices, and may include the
trade condition code if the customers desire. It would not include bid/
offer quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that it would make the AMEX Trade Prices
available to vendors no earlier than it makes those prices available
to the processor under the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed pilot program for AMEX Real-Time Trade Prices responds
to the requirements for distribution of real-time last-sale prices over
the Internet for reference purposes, rather than as a basis for making
trading decisions. The Exchange contemplates that Internet service
providers with a substantial customer base and traditional vendors with
large numbers of less active investors are potential subscribers to
AMEX Real-Time Trade Prices. The Exchange believes that AMEX Real-Time
Trade Prices would replace delayed last-sale prices for many casual
investors.
    The Exchange believes that, while vendors want AMEX real-time,
last-sale prices for widespread Internet distribution, they also want
to eliminate the administrative burdens associated with the current
distribution of real-time CTA prices. In addition, because these vendor
services do not support trading or order-routing functionality, the
vendors do not require, nor do they wish to pay for, the full spectrum
of consolidated CTA information. At the same time, they recognize the
quality and branding value of an AMEX print. In response, the Exchange
proposes the AMEX Trade Price program feature a flat, fixed monthly
vendor fee, no user-based fees, no vendor reporting requirements, and
no professional or non-professional subscriber agreements.
    The Exchange proposes to establish a flat monthly fee of $25,000
that would entitle an AMEX-Only Vendor to receive access to the AMEX
Real-Time Trade Prices datafeed. The AMEX-Only Vendor may use that
access to provide unlimited AMEX Trade Prices to an unlimited number of
the AMEX-Only Vendor's subscribers and customers. It may also syndicate
the service to an unlimited number of other Web site proprietors (as
described below). The Exchange would not impose any device or end-user
fee for the AMEX-Only Vendor's distribution of AMEX Trade Prices.
    It is proposed that the AMEX-Only Vendor agree to identify the AMEX
Trade Price by placing the text ``AMEX Data'' in close proximity to the
display of each AMEX Trade Price or series of AMEX Trade Prices. The
flat fee would enable the AMEX-Only Vendor to make AMEX Trade Prices
available without having to differentiate between professional
subscribers and nonprofessional subscribers, without having to account
for the extent of access to the data, and without having to report the
number of users. The flat fee would enable Internet service providers
and traditional vendors that have large numbers of casual investors as
subscribers and customers to contribute to the Exchange's operating
costs in a manner that is appropriate for their means of distribution.
    The Exchange has determined to allow AMEX-Only Vendors to provide
AMEX Real-Time Trade Prices to their subscribers and customers without
requiring the end-users to enter into contracts for the benefit of the
Exchange. Instead, the Exchange would require AMEX-Only Vendors to
provide a readily visible hyperlink that would send the end-user to a
warning notice about the end-user's receipt and use of market data. The
notice would be similar to the notice that vendors provide today when
providing CTA delayed data services. The Exchange proposes to require
AMEX-Only Vendors to enter into the form of ``vendor'' agreement into
which the CTA and CQ Plans require recipients of the Network B
datafeeds to enter (the ``Network B Vendor Form''). The Network B
Vendor Form would authorize the AMEX-Only Vendor to provide the AMEX
Real-Time Trade Prices service to its subscribers and customers.
    The Exchange proposes to supplement the Network B Vendor Form with
an Exhibit C that would provide above-described terms and conditions
that are unique to the AMEX Real-Time Trade Prices service. The
supplemental terms would govern things such as the restriction against
providing the service in the context of a trading or order-routing
service, the replacement of end-user agreements with a hyperlink to a
notice, the substance of the notice, the ``AMEX Data'' labeling
requirement, and the AMEX-Only Vendor's obligation to impose the below-
described Syndication Requirements on other Web site proprietors.
    In addition to allowing an AMEX-Only Vendor to make AMEX Trade
Prices available on its Web site, the Exchange further proposes that
the program would allow AMEX-Only Vendors to syndicate the service by
arranging with other Web site proprietors to link any such other
proprietor's Web site to the AMEX-Only Vendor's AMEX Trade Prices
service. The Exchange is proposing a separate fee of $25,000 per month
for an AMEX-Only Vendor that enters into an agreement to syndicate the
AMEX Trade Prices service to other Web site proprietors. The Exchange
would allow an AMEX-Only Vendor to syndicate its AMEX Trade Price
services in this manner to the AMEX-Only Vendor or to the other Web
site proprietors, subject to the following ``Syndication
Requirements'':
    1. Each other Web site proprietor must provide the same readily
visible hyperlink that the AMEX-Only Vendor must provide on its Web
site: The hyperlink that will send the end-user to

a warning notice about the end-user's receipt and use of market
data.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ While Amex will not dictate the exact terms of this warning
notice (which is consistent with the CTA delayed data service), it
will require the AMEX-Only Vendors to state that the display of AMEX
Data may not be used in a context in which a trading or order-
routing decision can be implemented. See e-mail dated June 7, 2007,
from Claire McGrath, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
Amex, to Michael Gaw, Assistant Director, and Geoffrey Pemble,
Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Each other Web site proprietor must identify the AMEX Trade
Price by placing the text ``AMEX Data'' in close proximity to the
display of each AMEX Trade Price or series of AMEX Trade Prices, just
as Amex proposes to require AMEX-Only Vendors to do.
    3. Each other Web site proprietor must identify the AMEX-Only
Vendor as the source of the AMEX Trade Price data in close proximity to
the display of each AMEX Trade Price or series of AMEX Trade Prices.
    4. Each other Web site proprietor must agree not to provide AMEX
Trade Prices in a context in which a trading or order-routing decision
can be implemented unless the other Web site proprietor also provides
consolidated displays of Network B last-sale prices available in an
equivalent manner.
    The Exchange believes that the AMEX Real-Time Trade Prices service
would (1) provide a low-cost service that would make real-time prices
widely available to many millions of casual investors; (2) provide
vendors with a real-time substitute for delayed prices; and (3) relieve
vendors of most administrative burdens.
    Prior to the end of the one-year pilot program, the Exchange would
assess its experience with the program. It either would submit a
proposed rule change that seeks to extend or modify the pilot program
or to make it permanent, or would announce publicly that it does not
seek to extend the pilot program beyond the one-year termination date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange. Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. In addition, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
Section 6(b)(4),\6\ which requires that the rules an exchange provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

B. 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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
; or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Amex-2007-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2007-49. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site at 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-49 and should be submitted
on or before July 5, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11489 Filed 6-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62948-62949]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program
and Request for Review; Westover Airport; Chicopee and Ludlow,
Massachusetts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure map for Westover Airport is in
compliance with applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that it
is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted
for Westover Airport in conjunction with the noise exposure map, and
that this program will be approved or disapproved on or before May 6,
2019.

DATES: The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise
exposure map and of the start of its review of the associated noise
compatibility program is November 7, 2018. The public comment period
ends on January 7, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports Division, 1200 District Ave., Burlington MA
01803. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also
be submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure map submitted for Westover Airport, as
submitted by the Westover Metropolitan Development Corporation under
the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR part 150, is in compliance with
applicable requirements of Part 150, effective November 7, 2018.
Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for
that airport, under Part 150, which will be approved or disapproved on
or before May 6, 2019. This notice also announces the availability of
this program for public review and comment.
    Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an
airport operator may submit to the FAA a noise exposure map which meets
applicable regulations and which depicts non compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such map, a description of projected aircraft
operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such map.
The Act requires such map to be developed in consultation with
interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has
submitted a noise exposure map that is found by FAA to be in compliance
with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150,
promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise
compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures
the operator has taken, or proposes, for the introduction of additional
non-compatible uses.
    The Westover Metropolitan Development Corporation submitted to the
FAA, on November 7, 2018, a noise exposure map, descriptions, and other
documentation that were produced during the Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning (Part 150) study at Westover Airport from September 2017 to
October 2018. It was requested that the FAA review this material as the
noise exposure map, as described in Section 103(a)(1) of the Act, and
that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the
airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise
compatibility program under Section 104(b) of the Act.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
related descriptions submitted by Westover Metropolitan Development
Corporation. The specific maps under consideration were:

    ``Existing (2018) Conditions Noise Exposure Map, NEM-1''
    ``Future (2023) Conditions Noise Exposure Map, NEM-2''

    The FAA has determined that the maps for Westover Airport are in
compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is
effective on November 7, 2018. FAA's determination on an airport
operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps
were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix
A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of
the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve
a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that
program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of
specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise
exposure map submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted
that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative
locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise
contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure map

to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should
be covered by the provisions of Section 107 of the Act. These functions
are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning
responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are
not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of a
noise exposure map. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed
overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties
on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that
submitted the map, or with those public agencies and planning agencies
with which consultation is required under Section 103 of the Act. The
FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under
Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required
consultation has been accomplished.
    The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
Westover Airport, also effective on November 7, 2018. Preliminary
review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the
requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but
that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval
of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum
of 180 days, will be completed on or before May 6, 2019. The FAA's
detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR
part 150, Section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation
process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of
aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign
commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of
reducing existing non compatible land uses and preventing the
introduction of additional non-compatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than
those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be
considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise
exposure map, the FAA's evaluation of the map, and the proposed noise
compatibility program are available for examination at the following
locations:
    Westover Airport, 255 Padgette Street, Chicopee, Massachusetts
01022.

    Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on November 7, 2018.
Richard P. Doucette,
FAA, New England Region, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-26478 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47095-47098]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15344]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0605; FRL-11128-01-R6]

Air Approval Plan; Arkansas; Excess Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve two
revisions to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Governor of the State of Arkansas on May 12, 2022, and November 1,
2022. The revisions were submitted in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy and SIP call published by EPA on June 12, 2015,
which included certain provisions in the Arkansas SIP related to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. The
submittals request the removal of the provisions identified in the 2015
SIP call from the Arkansas SIP. EPA is proposing to determine that the
removal of these substantially inadequate provisions from the SIP will
correct the deficiencies in the Arkansas SIP identified in the June 12,
2015 SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2022-0605 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-
6691, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270. While
all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information
may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either
location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Regional Haze and
SO2 Section, EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite
500, Dallas, Texas 75270,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov. Please call or email the contact listed above if
you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the
docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action
    B. Arkansas Regulation 19.1004(H) Malfunctions, Breakdowns,
Upsets and Regulation 19.602 Emergency Conditions
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
III. Proposed Action
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action

    On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register proposed
rulemaking action outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with
the CAA with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP
provision that EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA
proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, EPA issued a
document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously
proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that
determined the CAA precludes authority of EPA to create affirmative
defense provisions applicable to private civil suits. EPA outlined its
updated policy that affirmative defense SIP provisions are not
consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed in the supplemental
proposal document to apply its revised interpretation of the CAA to
specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed SIP calls for
those provisions where appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states, including Arkansas, were substantially inadequate to meet
CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to

submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an
18-month deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP
revisions. States were required to submit corrective revisions to their
SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016. The detailed
rationale for issuing the SIP call to Arkansas can be found in the 2015
SSM SIP Action and preceding proposed actions.
    EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Arkansas in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
populations, including overburdened communities, impacted by air
pollution receive the full health and environmental protections
provided by the CAA.\4\ The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior
statement from the 2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review and
potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no
longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles
laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the agency takes action on SIP
submissions, including the two Arkansas SIP submittals provided by the
State in response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
    \4\ Section J, June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Arkansas Regulation 19.1004(H) Malfunctions, Breakdowns, Upsets and
Regulation 19.602 Emergency Conditions

    Rules of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution
Control (Rule 19), Regulation 19.1004(H) Malfunctions, Breakdowns,
Upsets (Reg. 19.1004(H)) and Regulation 19.602 Emergency Conditions
(Reg. 19.602) were originally approved by EPA on October 16, 2000 (65
FR 61103), and became federally effective on November 15, 2000. The EPA
found that Reg. 19.1004(H) provided an automatic exemption for excess
emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) for sources located in
Pulaski County that occur due to malfunctions and that Reg. 19.602
provided an affirmative defense for excess emissions that occur during
emergency conditions. As a part of EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA made
a finding that these provisions (Regs. 19.1004(H) and 19.602) in the
Arkansas SIP are substantially inadequate as they provide for an
automatic exemption and an affirmative defense, respectively, from
otherwise applicable SIP emissions limits, and thus issued a SIP call
with respect to these two provisions. On January 12, 2022, EPA issued
Findings of Failure to Submit (FFS) to 12 air agencies, including the
State of Arkansas, that had not submitted SIPs responding to the 2015
SSM SIP call by the November 22, 2016, deadline per the requirements of
section 110(k)(5) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan
Revisions in Response to the 2015 Findings of Substantial Inadequacy
and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying To Excess Emissions
During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 87 FR 1680
(Jan. 12, 2022), available at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of SIP Submission

    Subsequent to EPA's January 12, 2022 FFS, Arkansas submitted two
SIP revisions on May 12, 2022, and November 1, 2022, requesting the
removal of both SIP-called provisions--Reg. 19.1004(H) and Reg. 19.602
of Rule 19, respectively--from the EPA-approved Arkansas
SIP.6 7 We note that Arkansas has repealed and removed Reg.
19.1004(H) under State law; however, Reg. 19.602 remains as a state-
only provision applicable only under the Arkansas law. The Reg. 19.602
provisions do not apply to actions brought by EPA or citizens to
enforce excess emission violations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The May 12, 2022 submittal included other revisions to Rule
19 which will be handled in a separate SIP rulemaking action(s); the
only aspect of the May 12, 2022 submittal that is being addressed by
this proposed rulemaking now is the removal of Reg. 1004(H) from the
Arkansas SIP. The November 1, 2022 submittal requests EPA approval
of the removal of Reg. 19.602 from the Arkansas SIP, and this
proposed rulemaking is taking action on that request.
    \7\ These SIP submittals were found to be administratively
complete on May 1, 2023. See ``AR SSM Completeness Letter''
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \8\ CAA sections 113 and 304; see 80 FR 33958 (June 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Removal of Reg. 19.1004(H) from the EPA-approved Arkansas SIP will
eliminate the impermissible automatic exemption from applicable SIP
emissions limits for VOC sources located in Pulaski County. Also,
removal of Reg. 19.602 from the EPA-approved Arkansas SIP will
eliminate an owner or operator's ability to assert an affirmative
defense to violations of applicable SIP emissions limits resulting from
excess emissions during SSM events.
    These revisions (removal of Reg. 19.1004(H) and Reg. 19.602) will
not otherwise affect the adequacy of the remaining portions of the
Arkansas SIP. EPA concurs with this State action and is proposing to
approve removing these substantially inadequate SIP-called provisions
(Reg. 19.1004(H) and Reg. 19.602) from the EPA-approved Arkansas SIP.
    The Arkansas submittal includes an analysis to demonstrate
compliance with Section 110(l) of the Act.\9\ Removal of Reg. 19.602
from the Arkansas SIP is not expected to lead to any emissions increase
and, therefore, would not interfere with the State's ability to attain
or maintain state or federal standards or reasonable further progress.
This approach is consistent with the analogy presented in EPA's Example
1 at 80 FR 33975 of the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Likewise, removal of Reg.
19.1004(H) from the Arkansas SIP is not expected to lead to any
emissions increase and, therefore, would not interfere with the State's
ability to attain or maintain state or federal standards or reasonable
further progress. Consequently, EPA is proposing to approve the removal
of Reg. 19.602 and Reg. 19.1004(H) from the EPA-approved Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See pdf pages 36-37 of the November 1, 2022 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Arkansas SIP submitted
by the State of Arkansas on May 12, 2022, and November 1, 2022,
following EPA's FFS

concerning excess emissions during periods of SSM. Specifically, we are
proposing to approve the removal of Reg. 19.1004(H) Malfunctions,
Breakdowns, Upsets and Reg. 19.602 Emergency Conditions of Rule 19 of
the Arkansas SIP. We are proposing to approve these revisions in
accordance with section 110 of the Act. EPA is further proposing to
determine that such SIP revisions correct the substantial inadequacies
in the Arkansas SIP as identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and in
response to EPA's 2022 FFS Action. EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM
SIP Action and is only taking comment on whether this proposed SIP
revision is consistent with CAA requirements and whether it addresses
the substantial inadequacy in the provisions of the Arkansas SIP
identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Although not a basis for this proposed action, EPA is providing
additional information, for informational purposes only, regarding this
proposed action and potentially impacted populations. EPA reviewed
demographic data, which provides an assessment of individual
demographic groups of the populations living within the affected
Pulaski County area, as well as the State of Arkansas as a whole.\10\
EPA then compared this data to the national average for each of the
demographic groups. The results of the demographic analysis indicate
that, for populations within Arkansas, the percent people of color
(persons who reported their race as a category other than white alone
(not Hispanic or Latino)) is above the national average for Pulaski
County; and below the national average for the State of Arkansas as a
whole (49.3 and 29.7 percent, respectively versus 41.7 percent). The
percent of the population that is Black or African American alone is
significantly above the national average for Pulaski County and above
the national average for the State as a whole (38.3 and 15.7 percent,
respectively versus 13.6 percent), and the percent of the population
that is American Indian/Alaska Native is below the national average for
both Pulaski County and the State as a whole (0.5 and 1.1 percent,
respectively versus 1.3 percent). The percent of people living below
the poverty level in Pulaski County and the State as a whole is higher
than the national average (17.6 and 16.3 percent, respectively versus
11.6 percent). The percent of people over 25 with a high school diploma
is above the national average for Pulaski County; and is similar to the
national average for the State of Arkansas as a whole (91.5 percent and
87.7 percent, respectively versus 88.9 percent), while the percent with
a Bachelor's degree or higher is above the national average for Pulaski
County; and is lower than the national average for the State of
Arkansas as a whole (36.3 percent and 24.3 percent, respectively versus
33.7 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/pulaskicountyarkansas,AR,US/PST045222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Communities in close proximity to and/or downwind of industrial
sources may be subject to disproportionate environmental impacts of
excess emissions. Short- and/or long-term exposure to air pollution has
been associated with a wide range of human health effects including
increased respiratory symptoms, hospitalization for heart or lung
diseases, and even premature death. Excess emissions during SSM
activities exceed applicable emission limitations and can be
considerably higher than emissions under normal steady-state
operations. As to all population groups within the State of Arkansas,
as explained below, we believe that this proposed action will be
beneficial and may reduce impacts. As discussed earlier in this
document, this rulemaking, if finalized as proposed, would result in
the removal of identified provisions in the Arkansas SIP that provide
sources emitting pollutants in excess of otherwise allowable amounts to
be automatically exempt or be allowed to assert an affirmative defense
for violations involving excess emissions during SSM activities.
Federal removal of such impermissible automatic exemptions or
impermissible affirmative defense provisions from the SIP is necessary
to preserve the enforcement structure of the CAA, to preserve the
jurisdiction of courts to adjudicate questions of liability and
remedies in judicial enforcement actions and to preserve the potential
for enforcement by the EPA and other parties under the citizen suit
provision as an effective deterrent to violations. If finalized as
proposed, this action is intended to ensure that overburdened
communities and affected populations across the State and downwind
areas receive the full human health and environmental protection
provided by the CAA. There is nothing in the record which indicates
that this proposed action, if finalized, would have disproportionately
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on communities
with environmental justice concerns.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to remove the
incorporation by reference of Reg. 19.1004(H) Malfunctions, Breakdowns,
Upsets and Reg. 19.602 Emergency Conditions of Rule 19 of the Arkansas
SIP, as described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6 office.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to 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 Act; and
     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. 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.'' 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.'' The air agency did
not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an
environmental justice analysis, as is described above in the section
titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The analysis was done
for the purpose of providing additional context and information about
this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the
nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have
a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area by
removal of an automatic exemption provision and an affirmative defense
provision from the Arkansas SIP. In addition, there is no information
in the record upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the
stated goal of Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 of achieving environmental
justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous
peoples.
    This proposed approval of a revision to the Arkansas SIP removing
provisions providing an exemption and an affirmative defense to excess
emission violations has no tribal implications as specified in E.O.
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal
governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal
governments because no actions will be required of tribal governments.
This action will also not preempt tribal law as it does not have
applicable or related tribal laws.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 13, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-15344 Filed 7-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 50914]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21938]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-3-000]

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order: NorthWestern
Corporation

    Take notice that on October 2, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(2018), NorthWestern Corporation
(Petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order (petition)
requesting the Commission issue a declaratory order determining that
(1) in periods when NorthWestern Corporation has excess generation and
cannot back down its generation, the avoided cost for energy to
Qualifying Facilities should be zero; and (2) nothing in Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, including the rule against non-
discrimination in pricing of avoided cost, permits the establishment of
a rate in excess of the utility's avoided cost, all as more fully
explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on November 1, 2018.

    Dated: October 3, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21938 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 48815]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-201-000]

Notice of Complaint; Louisiana Public Service Commission v.
Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC,
Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas,
Inc.

    Take notice that on September 19, 2018, pursuant to sections 206,
306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and 825h,
and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, the Louisiana Public
Service Commission (Complainant) filed a formal complaint (Complaint)
against Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy
Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Entergy New Orleans, LLC, and
Entergy Texas, Inc. (collectively, Respondents) alleging that the
failure of the Respondents to include 100 percent of the costs of
Transmission Control Centers that are owned by Entergy Services Inc. in
the Respondents' Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Attachment O expenses is unjust, unreasonable and unduly
discriminatory, as more fully explained in the Complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the Complaint were served
on contacts for the Respondents.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondents'
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 9, 2018.

    Dated: September 20, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21062 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P