[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22280-22281]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08737]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1126]

Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request
for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice, establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Circulatory System Devices
Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general function
of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency
on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA
is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 2 and 3, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 6
p.m.

ADDRESSES: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Grand Ballroom, 620
Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel telephone number is 301-
977-8900. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. You may
submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-N-1126 for ``Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a
Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments will be placed
in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in

accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evella Washington, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1535, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5290<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: On June 2 and 3, 2016, the committee will discuss recent
reports and epidemiologic investigations of nontuberculous mycobacteria
(NTM) infections associated with the use of heater-cooler devices
during cardiac surgical procedures. FDA is convening this committee to
seek expert scientific and clinical opinion related to contamination of
heater-cooler devices, associated patient infections, and mitigation
strategies based on available scientific information. The committee
will make recommendations on: (1) The effectiveness of cleaning and
disinfection methods for heater-cooler devices; (2) the amount and type
of premarket data and information needed to demonstrate validation of
cleaning and disinfection of heater-cooler devices in support of
labeling claims and technical instructions; (3) appropriate risk
mitigations to be implemented by manufacturers of heater-cooler devices
and/or hospital facilities to ensure patient safety during surgical
procedures where these devices are used; and (4) appropriate guidelines
and/or criteria based on a risk stratification schema for notifying
patients who may have already been exposed to NTM during prior cardiac
surgeries. Recommendations on these issues will assist FDA in
minimizing patient exposure to infections that may result from
contaminated heater-cooler devices.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
19, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on June 2, 2016, and between
approximately 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on June 3, 2016. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before May 11, 2016. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by May 12, 2016.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The docket number is FDA-2016-N-1126. The docket will close on June 16,
2016. Comments received on or before May 19, 2016, will be provided to
the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by the Agency.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact AnnMarie Williams, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 301-
796-5966, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 12, 2016.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-08737 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40637-40638]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0530]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
(NJICW), Atlantic City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the US Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard)
Bridge across Beach Thorofare, NJICW mile 67.2, and the US Route 40-322
(Albany Avenue) bridge across Inside Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, both
at Atlantic City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the
egress of vehicles following two concert events. This deviation allows
the bridge to remain in the closed to

navigation position to permit the free movement of vehicles during two
separate Beach Country concerts.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Thursday
July 31, 2014 and from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sunday August 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG 2014-0530, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or e-mail Mrs. Jessica Shea, Bridge
Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone (757) 398-
6422, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New Jersey Department of Transportation
requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations
of the US Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge across Beach Thorofare,
NJICW mile 67.2 and the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) across Inside
Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, both at Atlantic City, NJ. The temporary
deviation has been requested to ensure the safety of the heavy numbers
of pedestrians and vehicular traffic that would be transiting over the
bridges for the two concerts at Bader Field located within the city
limits.

Route 30/Absecon Boulevard Bridge

    The current operating regulation for this bridge is outlined fully
in 33 CFR 117.733(e). During the requested closure period for the
event, the draw would be required to open on the hour. In the closed
position to vessels, the vertical clearance for this bascule-type
bridge is 20 feet, above mean high water.

US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge

    The current operating regulation for this bridge is outlined fully
in 33 CFR 117.733(f). During the requested closure period for the
event, the draw would be required to open on the hour and half hour
from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and open on demand from between 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.
In the closed position to vessels, the vertical clearance for this
bascule-type bridge is 10 feet, above mean high water.
    Under this temporary deviation both bridges will be closed, from 8
p.m. to 10 p.m. on Thursday July 31, 2014 and from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
Sunday August 3, 2014. Between the dates of the two closure periods the
bridges shall return to their regular operating schedules.
    The majority of the vessels that transit the bridges this time of
the year are recreational boats. Vessels able to pass through the
bridges in the closed positions may do so at anytime. Both bridges will
be able to open for emergencies. The Atlantic Ocean is an alternate
route for vessels unable to pass through the bridges in closed
positions. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure
periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 30, 2014.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-16329 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


From: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 3: 49 PM To: etoy@ omb. eop. gov Cc: Talcott. Fred@ epamail. epa. gov; thrift. mike@ epamail. epa. gov; Durkee. Stan@ epamail. epa. gov; Mitchell. Ken@ epamail. epa. gov; Throwe. Scott@ epamail. epa. gov; Hustvedt. Ken@ epamail. epa. gov; Guinnup. Dave@ epamail. epa. gov; Pagano. Dennis@ epamail. epa. gov; Jenkins. Scott@ epamail. epa. gov; kphanks@ rti. org Subject: Memos for OMB Dear Edmond,

Per your request, attached are the stack parameters memo ( used to derive the model parameters for EPA's HEM analyses) and the emission factor documentation memo. Also attached is Attachment 1 to the emission factor memo ( emission factor summary sheets), which will give you an idea of the volume of emissions data. Both of these memos were developed for the proposal and are in the docket. The information has not changed.

On Monday, I should be able to forward to you the draft risk assessment memo. This memo is currently being developed and may be revised before being finalized.

If you have questions on the stack parameters memo or emissions factor memo, please contact me at ( 919) 541 4516. If you have questions on the risk assessment memo, please contact Scott Jenkins at ( 919) 541 1167. Regards, Mary Tom ( See attached file: Stack Parameter Documentation. wpd)( See attached file: EmissFactDoc_ memo. wpd)( See attached file: Att1 to EF memo. xls) Docket Nos. OAR 2003 0048 and A 44 98 The document Documentation of Stack Parameters Provided in 2002 submittal of National Emission Inventory ( NEI) data and as Inputs for Risk Assessment ( filename: Stack Parameter Documentation. wpd) is filed in Docket No. A 44 98, item II B 58.

The document Documentation of Emission Factor Development for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Manufacturing NESHAP ( filenames: EmissFactDoc_ memo. wpd; Att1 to EF memo. xls) is filed in Docket No. A 44 98, item II B 29.


[Federal Register: May 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 22919-22920]
[DOCID:fr15my09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-60-000]

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Pier Reinforcement Project

May 8, 2009.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) of the Pier
Reinforcement Project proposed by Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (DCP) in
the above-referenced docket.
    The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval
of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would
not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    The FERC is the lead agency for the preparation of the EA. The
United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) are cooperating agencies for the development
of the EA. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to the proposed action and participates in the
NEPA analysis.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of
modifications to DCP's existing pier in the Chesapeake Bay at the Cove
Point Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in Calvert County, Maryland.
The Pier Reinforcement Project would involve the following construction
activities:
     Addition of ten new mooring dolphins;
     Reinforcement of eight existing breasting dolphins;
     Walkways to connect the mooring dolphins to the existing
pier;
     Replacement of the existing gangway system with an
automated gangway;
     Installation of new display boards;
     Upgrading the docking control system to incorporate new
quick-release mooring hooks;
     Dredging approximately 120,000 cubic yards of sediment
directly adjacent to the pier; and
     Placing the dredged material at a permitted dredged
material placement site.
    The purpose of the project is to upgrade, expand, and modify the
existing pier to accommodate DCP's customers and recent advances in LNG
ship technology. The reinforced pier would enable the safe docking,
discharge, and departure of vessels capable of carrying cargoes of up
to 267,000 cubic meters of LNG. These vessels would be larger than
those currently authorized for the Cove Point LNG Terminal and would
allow comparable quantities of LNG to be delivered using fewer vessels.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8371.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, State, and local
agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, newspapers
and libraries in the project area, and parties to this proceeding. Any
person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration
prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we
receive your comments before the date specified below.
    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to

avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments,
the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please send in your comments so that they will
be received in Washington, DC on or before June 8, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods in which you can use
to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP09-60-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has
dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister''. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3,
PJ11.3. Mail your comments promptly, so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before June 8, 2009.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to
make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision. Further instructions for
becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the ``e-
filing'' link on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    The COE is also soliciting comments from the public in order to
consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed project to waters of
the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. All comments
received by the COE will become a part of the COE's administrative
record and will be considered by the COE in evaluating the Department
of the Army permit application. You may submit comments directly to the
COE. The COE project number is NAB-2008-01241-M05 (200861276 T61277)
(Dominion Cove Point LNG/Pier Reinforcement Project). Copies of any
written statements expressing concern for aquatic resources may be
submitted to: Mrs. Kathy Anderson, Corps of Engineers, CENAB-OP-RMS,
P.O. Box 1715, Baltimore, Maryland 21203-1715.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary
link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field (i.e. CP09-60). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11339 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4957]
[DOCID:fr28ja09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS04-282-001]

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative; Notice of Waiver

January 16, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 18, 2008, Old Dominion Electric
Cooperative filed a request for continued waiver from the requirements
of the Commission's Standards of Conduct requirements contained in Part
358 of the Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR Part 358 (2008).
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date has indicated below. Anyone filing
a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest 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 review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday January 23, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1765 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58682-58686]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23106]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0211, EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510; FRL-9917-17-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to
submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements,
including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring,
modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure
attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are
referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Commonwealth of
Virginia has made two separate submittals addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 ozone and 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS. This action approves the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) portions of the infrastructure
requirements of the CAA for the Commonwealth's SIP submittals for the
2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket
ID Numbers EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0211 for the 2008 ozone docket and EPA-R03-
OAR-2013-0510 for the 2010 NO2 docket. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available,
i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 21, 2014, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 79 FR 29142. In the NPR, EPA
proposed approval of the infrastructure elements of section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA as they relate to
Virginia's PSD program for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2
NAAQS. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by Virginia on July 23,
2012 and May 30, 2013 for the 2008 ozone and the 2010 NO2
NAAQS, respectively.
    The July 23, 2012 and May 30, 2013 Virginia infrastructure SIP
submissions indicated that the approved Virginia SIP (plus measures
submitted but not yet fully approved by EPA for the SIP) addressed
requirements for a PSD program as required for section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) and (J) of the

CAA.\1\ In Virginia, construction and modification of stationary
sources are covered under Article 8, Permits for Major Stationary
Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Areas (9VAC5-80-1605 et seq.) which is included in the
approved Virginia SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2420(c). Article 8 also requires
that construction and modification of major stationary sources will not
cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS (9VAC5-80-1635, Ambient
Air Increments and 9VAC5-80-1645, Ambient Air Ceilings) and requires
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to new or
modified sources (9VAC5-80-1705, Control Technology Review). On August
5, 2011, Virginia submitted a revision to its SIP which incorporated
preconstruction permitting requirements for sources of fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) into Virginia's PSD program. Subsequent to
Virginia's submittal, two decisions by the United States Court of
Appeals for the DC Circuit addressed the Federal PM2.5
program and impacted EPA's ability to fully approve the PSD SIP
revisions submitted by Virginia.\2\ Virginia consequently submitted
additional revisions to its PSD program addressing preconstruction
permitting requirements for sources of PM2.5. On February
25, 2014, EPA fully approved these revisions to Virginia's PSD program.
79 FR 10377. With these revisions fully approved, Virginia's SIP-
approved PSD program now contains all of the emission limitations,
control measures, and other program elements required by the CAA and 40
CFR 51.166 for all required pollutants, including PM2.5. Id.
(also approving Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2008 lead NAAQS for PSD requirements in section
110(a)(2) of the CAA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Virginia's July 23, 2012 infrastructure SIP submission for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS cited to Virginia's existing approved PSD
program to address section 110(a)(2) requirements for PSD. However,
the May 30, 2013 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS cited to Virginia's existing approved PSD
program plus additional regulatory provisions submitted to EPA but
not yet fully approved into the SIP to address section 110(a)(2)
requirements for PSD.
    \2\ See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (remanding EPA's rules implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2008 rule, ``Implementation of
New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)''), and Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d
458 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (vacating and remanding provisions at 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5), (k)(2) and 52.21(i)(5), (k)(2) relating to
PM2.5 significant impact levels and significant
monitoring concentrations for PSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires each state's SIP to
``include a program to provide for . . . regulation of the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by
the plan as necessary to ensure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in . . .
this subchapter.'' Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that for
each NAAQS the state's SIP must ``meet the applicable requirements of .
. . part C of this subchapter (relating to prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).'' Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires each state's SIP to include
provisions which will prevent emissions from within the state
interfering with the measures required by another state for
implementing PSD. As discussed in EPA's May 21, 2014 NPR, when
reviewing infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA focuses on the structural
PSD program requirements contained in part C as well as EPA's PSD
regulations. These structural requirements call for the PSD program to
address all NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat
GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source
is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said
that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations
on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. In order to act
consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending
further judicial action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not
continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs
include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found
impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a
state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD
permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or
has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii)
for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant
net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules
in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates
that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs
in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of
subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA regulations and state PSD
program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal
process before the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have
revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP
submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the
state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme
Court's decision.
    As discussed in the May 21, 2014 NPR and herein, EPA finds
Virginia's approved SIP meets the statutory obligations relating to a
PSD permit program required by section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 79
FR 10377 (providing full approval to Virginia's PSD program as
addressing requirements in the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.166). The detailed
rationale for EPA's action is explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here. With respect to GHGs, EPA has determined that Virginia's
SIP is currently sufficient to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS because the PSD permitting program previously
approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits
(otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs)
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT.
Although Virginia's approved PSD permitting program may currently
contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme
Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission
inadequate to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). As
previously mentioned, the Virginia SIP currently contains the necessary
PSD requirements and the application of those requirements is not
impeded by the presence of other previously approved provisions
regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that, in light of the
Supreme Court decision, EPA does not consider necessary at this time.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed
approval of Virginia's infrastructure SIP as it relates to section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 2, 2013, EPA proposed approval of the 2008 ozone submittal
for

the following infrastructure elements: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C)
(for enforcement and regulation of minor sources and minor
modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), (D)(ii),
(E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to consultation, public
notification, and visibility protection requirements), (K), (L), and
(M). 78 FR 39651. Subsequently, EPA published a Final Rulemaking Notice
(FRN) on March 27, 2014, which approved the Virginia 2008 ozone
submittal for those specific elements. 79 FR 17043.
    On August 5, 2013, EPA proposed approval of the 2010 NO2
submittal for the following infrastructure elements: Section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources
and minor modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection),
(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to
consultation, public notification, and visibility protection
requirements), (K), (L), and (M). 78 FR 47264. Subsequently, on March
18, 2014, EPA published a FRN which approved the Virginia 2010
NO2 submittal for those specific elements. 79 FR 15012.
    In both EPA's March 27, 2014 and March 18, 2014 FRNs, EPA indicated
that it was taking separate action on certain infrastructure elements
from Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals as they related to PSD
and section 128 of the CAA. This final rulemaking action approves the
infrastructure elements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of
the CAA as they relate to Virginia's PSD program for the 2008 ozone and
2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA will take later separate action on
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA as it relates to section 128 for
the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

III. Public Comments

    EPA received two comments on the May 21, 2014 NPR proposing
approval of Virginia's July 23, 2012 and May 30, 2013 SIP submissions
addressing the PSD infrastructure elements for the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS. A full set of the comments is provided in the
docket for this final rulemaking action. A summary of each comment and
the EPA's response is provided in this section.
    Comment: One commenter stated, ``[t]hese regulations will destroy
the cheap coal energy for our population'' and requested a new
President to reverse EPA's climate change policies. The commenter also
suggested EPA should ``go through Congress,'' presumably on climate
change issues.
    EPA Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the concerns expressed.
However, the comments are not germane to the present rulemaking. This
rulemaking action approves Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for
the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS as fully addressing the
PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J)
of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. While
Virginia's SIP-approved PSD program includes greenhouse gases as a
regulated pollutant, EPA is not approving those provisions in this
rulemaking action. The commenter's concerns regarding coal energy and
EPA's actions on climate change issues are irrelevant to this
rulemaking action, and therefore no further response is required.
    Comment: Another commenter remarked on Virginia's environmental
assessment (audit) ``privilege'' discussed in Section III of EPA's May
21, 2014 NPR under ``General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals
from the Commonwealth of Virginia,'' which is also included in Section
IV of this rulemaking action. The commenter stated he wrote ``to
support the docket as written'' and stated there needs to be a
sufficient level of disclosure of emissions in environmental law to
ensure emission limits are met. The commenter also stated that the
Commonwealth of Virginia's laws seem to meet this standard, and
therefore the commenter supported ``their proposal.''
    EPA Response: In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving
Virginia's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting PSD requirements
in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA is not approving any Virginia
privilege or immunity law into the Virginia SIP nor taking any
rulemaking action on any such Virginia provisions. As discussed in the
NPR and in Section V of this rulemaking action, Virginia's law
regarding an environmental assessment (audit) ``privilege'' for
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity
provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information that are the product of a voluntary environmental
assessment. As discussed in the NPR and in Section IV of this
rulemaking action, the Virginia Attorney General's January 12, 1998
opinion stated that Virginia's audit privilege law is inapplicable to
enforcement of any Federally authorized program, since ``no immunity
could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties
because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal
law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.'' EPA has determined
that Virginia's privilege and immunity statutory provision will not
preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD program consistent
with the Federal requirements, and EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and
has no impact on Federal enforcement authorities. However, in this
rulemaking action, EPA is not approving any of Virginia's privilege and
immunity statutory provisions into the Virginia SIP, and our discussion
merely provides EPA's long-held interpretation of Virginia's statutory
privilege provision as not impacting enforcement of the CAA or
interfering with Federally required programs such as a PSD permits
program. While the commenter is mistaken regarding the substance of our
rulemaking action here, the commenter did not disagree with EPA. Thus,
EPA thanks the commenter for his input. As the comment is not related
to this rulemaking action which approves Virginia's SIP submissions as
meeting PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, no further response is required.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the formal SIP revisions submitted by Virginia on
July 23, 2012 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and May 30, 2013 for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS as they meet the infrastructure requirements
relating to a PSD permit program pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA.

V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure

documents and information about the content of those documents that are
the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law
does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or
developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental
assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process;
(3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts . . .'' The opinion concludes
that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged because such documents and information
are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal
law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
PSD program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event,
because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and
immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any
impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167,
205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the
state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition,
citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected
by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 1, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, approving Virginia's July 23, 2012 SIP submission
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and May 30, 2013 SIP submission for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS as meeting the PSD elements in section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 9, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (e), revise the entry for ``Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
NAAQS.''
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e), revise the entry for ``Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.''
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable       State submittal
            revision               geographic area         date        EPA approval date  Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide.........  5/30/13.........  3/18/14, 79 FR     This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                            15012.             the following CAA
 for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide                                                             elements, or portions
 NAAQS.                                                                                thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E)(i),
                                                                                (E)(iii), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J), (K), (L),
                                                                                and (M) with the
                                                                                exception of PSD
                                                                                elements.
                                                                       9/30/14 [Insert    This action addresses
                                                                        Federal Register   the following CAA
                                                                        citation].         elements, or portions
                                                                                thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), and (J)
                                                                                with respect to the
                                                                                PSD elements.
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide.........  7/23/12.........  3/27/14, 79 FR     This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                            17043.             the following CAA
 for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.                                                                 elements, or portions
                                                                                thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E)(i),
                                                                                (E)(iii), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J), (K), (L),
                                                                                and (M) with the
                                                                                exception of PSD
                                                                                elements.
                                                                       9/30/14 [Insert    This action addresses
                                                                        Federal Register   the following CAA
                                                                        citation].         elements, or portions
                                                                                thereof:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), and (J)
                                                                                with respect to the
                                                                                PSD elements.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-23106 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77134-77137]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31246]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68517; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-136]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating
to the Distribution of Auction Messages

December 21, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on December 11, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1080(m) to provide for the
distribution of auction messages for certain orders.
    The Exchange proposes this amendment become operative on January 2,
2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 1080
titled ``Phlx XL and Phlx XL II,'' which describes the Exchange's fully
automated options trading system.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange seeks
to amend an aspect of the order handling rules related to routing
orders to away markets in Rule 1080(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposal refers to ``PHLX XL[supreg]'' as the
Exchange's automated options trading system. In May 2009 the
Exchange enhanced the system and adopted corresponding rules
referring to the system as ``Phlx XL II.'' See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-32). The Exchange intends to submit a separate
technical proposed rule change that would change all references to
the system from ``Phlx XL II'' to ``PHLX XL'' for branding purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, when the Exchange's disseminated bid or offer (``PBBO'')
is inferior to the away best bid or offer (``ABBO'') the Phlx XL II
system will route FIND \4\ and SRCH \5\ Orders with no other
contingencies as specified in Rule 1080(m) and will place contracts
designated as not available for routing (``DNR'') \6\ on the Phlx book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A FIND order is an order that is routable upon receipt
during open trading. Only a customer FIND order on the Phlx XL II
book, whether it is received prior to the opening or it is a GTC
FIND order from a prior day, may be routed as part of the Opening
Process. Non-customer FIND orders are not eligible for routing
during the Opening Process. Once the Opening Process is complete,
any FIND order is either eligible to trade at the Phlx price or
placed on the Phlx book either at its limit price or at a price that
is one Minimum Price Variation (``MPV'') from the ABBO price if it
would otherwise lock or cross the ABBO. Such FIND order will not be
eligible for routing until the next time the option series is
subject to a new Opening Process. See Rule 1080 (m)(iv)(B).
    \5\ A SRCH order is a customer order that is routable at any
time. A SRCH order on the Phlx XL II book during the Opening Process
(including a re-opening following a trading halt), whether it is
received prior to the opening or it is a GTC SRCH order from a prior
day, may be routed as part of the Opening Process. Once the Opening
Process is complete, a SRCH order is eligible either to: (1) Trade
at the Phlx price if that price is equal to or better than the ABBO
or, if the ABBO is better than the Phlx price, orders have been
routed to better priced markets for their full size; or (2) be
routed to better priced markets if the ABBO price is the best price,
and/or (3) be placed on the Phlx XL II book at its limit price if
not participating in the Phlx opening at the opening price and not
locking or crossing the ABBO. Once on the book, the SRCH order is
eligible for routing if it is locked or crossed by an away market.
See Rule 1080 (m)(C).
    \6\ A DNR order will never be routed outside of Phlx regardless
of the prices displayed by away markets. See Rule 1080(m)(iv)(A). In
addition, responses may not trade through the away market. See Rule
1084.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to routable FIND and SRCH orders, today the Phlx XL II
system has a Route Timer which provides for a system pause for a period
not to exceed one second.\7\ When the Route Timer is initiated, Phlx XL
II participants and other market participants are provided an
opportunity to interact with the FIND or SRCH order. During the Route
Timer, the FIND or SRCH order is included in the PBBO at a price one
MPV away from the ABBO. If, during the Route Timer, any new interest
arrives opposite the FIND or SRCH order that is equal to or better than
the ABBO price, the FIND or SRCH order will trade against such new
interest at the ABBO price.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 1080(m)(iv)(B) and (C).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange is proposing to expose orders by
broadcasting a notification to all Phlx XL II participants and other
market participants who have elected to receive such notifications \9\
at the time that a FIND or SRCH order is received by Phlx

XL II for a time period not to exceed the Route Timer.\10\ In the
instance that the ABBO changes during the Route Timer, the Exchange
would broadcast an updated notification with the new price. Once the
Route Timer commences, as is the case today, Phlx XL II market
participants and other market participants would be able to submit new
interest opposite the FIND or SRCH order that is equal to or better
than the ABBO price, the FIND or SRCH order will trade against such new
interest at the ABBO price. Today, if, at the end of the Route Timer,
the ABBO is still the best price, the FIND or SRCH order, will route to
the away market(s) whose disseminated price is better than the PBBO, up
to a size equal to the lesser of either: (a) the away markets' size, or
(b) the remaining size of the SRCH order, as is the case today.\11\
This would not change with this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange will broadcast the notifications as specified
below in the filing. Only subscribers to certain data feeds will
receive the notifications. The notification will identify the size
and the side of the market in addition to the exposed price.
    \10\ Pursuant to Rule 1080(m)(iv), the Route Timer will not
exceed one second.
    \11\ If the FIND or SRCH order still has remaining size after
such routing, it may (1) trade at the next PBBO price (or prices) if
the order price is locking or crossing that price (or prices) up to
the ABBO price, and/or (2) be entered into the Phlx XL II book at
its limit price if not locking or crossing the Phlx price or the
ABBO. The Phlx XL II system will route and execute contracts
contemporaneously at the end of the Route Timer. Once on the book,
the SRCH order is eligible for routing if it is locked or crossed by
an away market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to expose the order by way of a
broadcasting a notification to Phlx XL II participants and other market
participants is an amendment to the Exchange's current rules. The
Exchange is not proposing to amend any other functionality in Rule
1080(m) related to FIND or SRCH orders. Today, the Exchange executes
any responses at a price at or better than the ABBO on a first come,
first served basis prior to routing the order to an away market in
accordance with the rules currently in effect in Rule 1080(m). If a
response trades against new interest, the Route Timer would terminate
early if the order is fully executed. This amendment is similar to
rules at other options exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Currently the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'') and the International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE'')
expose orders during an auction period not to exceed one second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of an example, today assuming that Phlx's best offer is 1.22
for 200 contracts and the NBO is 1.19 for 10 contracts with one other
market disseminating a 1.20 offer for 20 contracts. An order to buy 100
contracts at 1.22 is received. The order would be broadcast through a
notification message at 1.19. A market participant submits a response
to trade 10 contracts at 1.19. As a result 10 contracts trade against
market participant A at 1.19 (leaving 90 contracts on the order).
During the remaining time on the Route Timer market participant B
submits a response to trade 20 contracts at 1.21. As soon as the Route
Timer concludes (assuming away market prices have not changed), the
Exchange will simultaneously: route an ISO to buy 10 contracts at 1.19
to the NBBO market, route an ISO to buy 20 contracts at 1.20 to the
market displaying the 1.20 offer, execute 20 contracts at 1.21 market
participant B, and execute the remaining 40 contracts against the
Exchange's 1.22 offer.
    With respect to non-routable DNR orders, today a DNR order may
execute at a price equal to or better than, but not inferior to, the
best away market price but, if that best away market remains, the DNR
order will remain in the Phlx book and be displayed at a price one
minimum price variation inferior to that away best bid/offer.\13\ An
incoming order interacting with such a resting DNR order receives the
best away market price.\14\ The Exchange is not proposing to change
this functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 1080(m)(iv)(A).
    \14\ Should the best away market change its price, or move to an
inferior price level, the DNR order will automatically re-price from
its one minimum price variation inferior to the original away best
bid/offer price to one minimum trading increment away from the new
away best bid/offer price or its original limit price. Also, once
priced at its original limit price, it will remain at that price
until executed or cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to routable orders, the Exchange is proposing to expose the
DNR order, upon receipt, to Phlx XL II participants and other market
participants in a manner similar to FIND and SRCH orders. The Exchange
proposes to expose the order by broadcasting a notification to Phlx XL
II participants and other market participants. In the instance that the
best away market changes to an inferior price, the DNR order
automatically re-prices again. If, and only if, after repricing, the
DNR order is still not displayed at its original limit price the
Exchange will expose the order again to Phlx XL II participants and
other market participants. The DNR order would remain on the book until
executed or cancelled, and not route to an away market, pursuant to
current Exchange rules. Any responses received to the exposed order
would be executed in accordance with the current text of Rule
1080(m)(iv)(A).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See also Rule 1080(c)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of an example, today assuming that the PBBO is 1.00 bid/2.00
offer and the NBBO is 1.00 bid/1.20 offer and a DNR order to buy 100
contracts for 1.50 is received. The order would be broadcast through a
notification message at 1.20 and the PBBO would be updated to 1.19 bid/
2.00 offer. If the NBBO moved to 1.00 bid/1.50 offer, and the DNR order
was not completely filled, the Exchange would reprice the DNR order and
update the PBBO to 1.49 bid/2.00 offer and broadcast another
notification message at 1.50. The Exchange would expose the order in
this instance because the re-priced DNR order locked the market. The
Exchange would also expose the repriced DNR order in the instance that
the order crossed the market. For example, assuming that the PBBO is
1.00 bid/2.00 offer and the NBBO is 1.00 bid/1.20 offer and a DNR order
to buy 100 contracts for 1.50 is received. The order would be broadcast
through a notification message at 1.20. If the NBBO moved to 1.00 bid/
1.40 offer, and the order was not completely filled, the Exchange would
reprice the DNR order and update the PBBO to 1.39 bid/2.00 offer and
rebroadcast the message at 1.40. If the NBBO moved to 1.00 bid/1.53
offer, and the order was not completely filled, the Exchange would
reprice the DNR order to its limit of 1.50 and update the PBBO to 1.50
bid/2.00 offer. The DNR order, since posted at its limit, will not be
rebroadcast and will remain on the book until it is either executed or
cancelled. As previously stated, the Exchange is not proposing to add
any additional functionality to the Phlx XL II system.
    This proposal only seeks to expose certain orders by broadcasting a
notification message to all Phlx XL II participants and market
participants that subscribe to certain data feeds. The Exchange would
send the notification message which exposes the order through both the
TOPO Plus Order feed \16\ and the Phlx Depth Data feed.\17\ In
addition, Market Makers would also receive the notification through the
specialized quote feed (``SQF'') which is an interface that allows
Specialists,\18\

Streaming Quote Traders \19\ and Remote Streaming Quote Traders \20\ to
connect and send quotes into Phlx XL II.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ TOPO Plus Orders provides disseminated Exchange simple and
complex PHLX order as well as top of file quotation information and
PHLX last sale data. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60877
(October 26, 2009), 74 FR 56255 (October 30, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-
92).
    \17\ PHLX Depth of Market is a data product that provides: (i)
order and quotation information for individual quotes and orders on
the PHLX book; (ii) last sale information for trades executed on
PHLX; and (iii) an Imbalance Message. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 66967 (May 11, 2012), 77 FR 29440 (May 17, 2012) (SR-
Phlx-2012-60). Both of these feeds require subscribers to pay
certain fees in order to obtain these feeds. The pricing associated
with these data feeds are located in the Exchange's Pricing Schedule
at Section IX, titled ``Proprietary Date Feed Fees.''
    \18\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \19\ An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an
Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') who has received permission from
the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically
in options to which such SQT is assigned.
    \20\ A Remote Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'') is defined
Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member or member
organization with no physical trading floor presence who has
received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such RSQT has been
assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically
from off the floor of the Exchange.
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63034 (October 4,
2010), 75 FR 62441 (October 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to rename Rule 1080(m) from ``Order
Routing'' to ``Away Markets and Order Routing'' to better reflect the
various order types in that section.
    The Exchange proposes this amendment become operative on January 2,
2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \22\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \23\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that exposing certain orders has the
potential to result in more efficient executions for customers as
responses to exposed orders could result in quicker executions. The
Exchange's proposal to expose the orders to all Phlx XL II market
participants as well as other market participants is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Broadcasting the
message to all market participants should promote broader awareness of,
and provide increased opportunities for greater participation in, these
executions and consequentially, facilitate the ability of the Exchange
to bring together participants and encourage more robust competition
for these orders. In addition, the proposal would continue to guarantee
that orders will receive an execution that is at a price at least as
good as the price disseminated by the best away market at the time the
order was received.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that because all Phlx XL II
participants and other market participants have the ability to
subscribe to a data feed to provide them with the notifications
exposing the orders, that all market participants may avail themselves
of the same information. While Market Makers may receive the SQF data
at no cost, Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations \24\
which do not apply to other market participants. In addition, Market
Makers incur other costs at the Exchange which are specific to their
market making obligations, as compared to other market
participants.\25\ The Exchange believes that because the notification
message would be broadcast to all Phlx XL II and other market
participants that subscribe to a data feed that it is a fair and
equitable way to notify the marketplace of the opportunity to trade
with these orders. Also, it is important to note that the exposure of
the orders will not impact the manner in which the orders will be
executed or routed today, rather the notification message is an
addition to the current functionality that is in place today at the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
    \25\ Market Makers incur costs related to assignments and costs
related to subscribing to various data feeds. See Phlx's Pricing
Schedule at Section VI, B and C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, but rather this proposal should
facilitate the ability of the Exchange to bring together participants
and encourage more robust competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the
    Act\26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \27\ thereunder because the proposal
does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which
it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \28\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \29\ 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 requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay period is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the Commission believes that the proposal would allow the Exchange to
broadcast these orders to market participants who subscribe to the
Exchange data feed, which may provide more opportunities for market
participants to interact with such orders. For these reasons, 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 as of January
2, 2013.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \30\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, 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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-136 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-Phlx-2012-136. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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 Number SR-Phlx-2012-136 and should be
submitted on or before January 22, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31246 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P