[Federal Register: May 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 26087-26089]
[DOCID:fr03my06-71]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0327; FRL-8058-6]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Establishment and
Amendment of Regulations for the Residues of Bifenazate in or on
Various Food Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for the residues
of bifenazate (1-methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy [1,1'-biphenyl]-3-
yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) and diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-
[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate) in
or on fruit , stone (Group 12); pea (garden and edible podded); and
vegetable, tuberous and corm (Subgroup 1C); and .proposes to amend 40
CFR 180.572 by deleting the existing peach and nectarine tolerances
since they are included in the fruit, stone (Group 12) tolerance.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0327 and pesticide petition number (PP)
3E6762 and 5E6992, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday,
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The
Docket telephone number and hours of operation will remain the same
after the move.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0327. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you

consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., 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 in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at
the location identified under ``Delivery'' and ``Important Note.'' The
hours of operation for this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Docket Facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; phone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of each pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that these pesticide petitions
contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petitions included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this information on the home page

of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerances

    PP 3E6762. Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 681 US
Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902, proposes to
establish a tolerance for the residues of bifenazate (1-methylethyl 2-
(4-methoxy [1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) and
diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-
methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate) in or on food commodities
fruit, stone (Group 12) at 2.0 parts per million (ppm); and proposes to
amend 40 CFR 180.572 by deleting the existing peach and nectarine
tolerances since they are included in the fruit, stone (Group 12)
tolerance of 2.0 ppm;

Amendment to Existing Tolerances

    PP 5E6992. Proposes bifenazate tolerances for pea, garden at 0.2
ppm; pea, edible podded at 4.0 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm
(Subgroup 1C) at 0.01 ppm. A practical analytical

method was developed for detecting and measuring residues of bifenazate
in or on raw agricultural commodities. The method utilizes reverse
phase high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) to separate bifenazate
from matrix derived interferences, and oxidative coulometric
electrochemical detection (OCED) for the identification and
quantification of this analyte. Using this method, the limit of
quantitation (LOQ) for bifenazate in stone and pome fruit, grapes,
strawberries and cotton was 0.01 ppm. For hops, the LOQ was 0.05 ppm.
The limit of detection for this method, which varies with matrix, is
0.005 ppm. The analytical method for bifenazate and its major
metabolite, D3598, in animal samples was designed using the same
principles invoked in the plant method with minor modifications.
However, in animal samples, a separate aliquot of the extract was used
to determine residues of A1530 and its sulfate (combined) in milk and
meat samples (these metabolites appeared to be significant in goat
metabolism studies). The extract was subjected to acid hydrolysis to
convert the sulfate conjugate to A1530 before it was quantified by HPLC
using fluorescence or OCED detectors.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 24, 2006.
 Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-6615 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26749-26750]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14571-000]

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

    On December 16, 2013, Archon Energy 1, Inc. filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Stony Creek
Hydropower Project (Stony Creek Project or project) to be located on
Stony Creek, near the city of Orland, Glenn County, California. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary

permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 650-
feet-wide and up to 7-feet-high concrete diversion structure; (2) a 6-
mile-long penstock that would feed up to five, 1-mile-long pressurized,
reinforced concrete pipes creating approximately 125 feet of head; (3)
a powerhouse, containing up to four turbine-generators; and (4) an
undefined interconnection point to the grid within five to eight miles
of the proposed powerhouse. The estimated annual generation of the
Stony Creek Project would be 100,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul Grist, President, Archon Energy 1,
Inc., 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800, Tampa, Florida 33602; phone:
(415) 377-2460.
    FERC Contact: Shana Murray; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14571-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14571) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 1, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10613 Filed 5-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81186-81189]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27596]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79286; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Adopting a Decommission Extension Fee for Receipt of the NYSE Order
Imbalances Market Data Product

November 10, 2016.
    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 October 28, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 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 adopt a Decommission Extension Fee for
receipt of the NYSE Order Imbalances market data product. The proposed
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a Decommission Extension Fee for
receipt of the NYSE Order Imbalances market data product,\3\ as set
forth on the NYSE Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (``Fee
Schedule''). Recipients of NYSE Order Imbalances would continue to be
subject to the already existing subscription fees currently set forth
in the Fee Schedule. The proposed Decommission Extension Fee would
apply only to those subscribers who decide to continue to receive the
NYSE Order Imbalances feed in its legacy format for up to two months
after which the feed will be distributed exclusively in the new format
explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59202 (January 6,
2009), 74 FR 1744 (January 13, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-132--Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Introduce a NYSE Order Imbalance
Information Fee); and 59543 (March 9, 2009), 74 FR 11159 (March 16,
2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-132--Approval Order). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 72923 (Aug. 26, 2014), 79 FR 52079 (Sept.
2, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-43) (establishing fees for non-display use of
NYSE Order Imbalances); and 76972 (January 26, 2016), 81 FR 5142
(February 1, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-08) (amending fees for NYSE Order
Imbalances and NYSE Alerts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Order Imbalances is an NYSE-only market data feed of real-time
order imbalances that accumulate prior to the opening of trading on the
Exchange and prior to the close of trading on the Exchange. The
Exchange distributes information about these imbalances in real-time at
specified intervals prior to the opening and closing auction each
day.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rules 15 (Pre-Opening Indications and Opening Order
Imbalance Information) and 123C (The Closing Procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Exchange's efforts to regularly upgrade systems to
support more modern data distribution formats and protocols as
technology evolves,

beginning October 31, 2016, NYSE Order Imbalances will be transmitted
in a new format, Exchange Data Protocol (XDP). Beginning October 31,
2016, the Exchange will transmit NYSE Order Imbalances in both the
legacy format and in XDP format without any additional fee being
charged for providing this data feed in both formats. The dual
dissemination will remain in place until February 28, 2017, the planned
decommission date of the legacy format. Beginning March 1, 2017,
recipients of NYSE Order Imbalances who wish to continue to receive
NYSE Order Imbalances in the legacy format will be subject to the
proposed Decommission Extension Fee of $5,000 per month.\5\ During the
extension period, recipients of NYSE Order Imbalances would continue to
be subject to the subscription fees currently noted in the Fee
Schedule. The extension period for receiving this data feed in the
legacy format will expire on April 28, 2017, on which date distribution
of NYSE Order Imbalances in the legacy format will be permanently
discontinued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The concept of a Decommission Extension Fee is not novel.
The Exchange recently adopted a Decommission Extension Fee for
receipt of the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades market data products when
the Exchange migrated those products to the XDP format. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77388 (March 17, 2016), 81 FR
15363 (March 22, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adopting an extension fee for
subscribers of NYSE Order Imbalances who wish to receive this data feed
in the legacy format for a period of time beyond the built-in overlap
period is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the proposed fee would apply equally to all data recipients that
currently subscribe to NYSE Order Imbalances. The Exchange believes
that it is reasonable to require data recipients to pay an additional
fee for taking the data feed in the legacy format beyond the period of
time specifically allotted by the Exchange for data feed customers to
adapt to the new XDP format at no extra cost. To that end, the
extension fee is designed to encourage data recipients to migrate to
the XDP format in order to continue to receive NYSE Order Imbalances in
XDP as the legacy format would no longer be available after that date.
The Exchange does not intend to support the legacy format at all after
April 28, 2017.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE Order Imbalances is entirely optional.
The Exchange is not required to make NYSE Order Imbalances available or
to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any
firm required to purchase NYSE Order Imbalances, nor is the Exchange
required to offer any feed (NYSE Order Imbalances, or otherwise) in a
particular format, and it is a benefit to the markets generally that
NYSE update its distribution technology to make it more efficient (and
at the same time eliminate less efficient forms of dissemination).
Firms that do purchase NYSE Order Imbalances do so for the primary
goals of using them to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and in some
instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for order
flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether NYSE
Order Imbalances or any other similar products are attractively priced
or not.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Proposing Release on Regulation of NMS Stock
Alternative Trading Systems, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
76474 (Nov. 18, 2015) (File No. S7-23-15). See also, ``Brokers
Warned Not to Steer Clients' Stock Trades Into Slow Lane,''
Bloomberg Business, December 14, 2015 (Sigma X dark pool to use
direct exchange feeds as the primary source of price data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to
set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market
data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted in
1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's
conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive forces should
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national
market system for trading equity securities.' '' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that
the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees
established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of
alternatives to the legacy format, such as converting to XDP as soon as
possible, further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable
fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and
subscribers can select such alternatives.
    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for proprietary market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\10\ For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties and the Commission to cost-regulate a large number
of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary amounts of
information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as described
below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation
from prices charged by markets for other services that are joint
products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to litigation
and may distort incentives, including those to minimize costs and to
innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the
Commission would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return,
and the industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. Finally, the prices set
herein are prices for continuing to support distribution formats the
Exchange has elected to retire in favor of new and more efficient
distribution formats, making cost-based analyses even less relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. An

exchange's ability to price its proprietary market data feed products
is constrained by actual competition for the sale of proprietary market
data products, the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the
existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data (and in
this instance, the ability of any firm to switch to the new
distribution format in a time frame that eliminates the need to pay
these fees entirely).
The Existence of Actual Competition
    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict
pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous
exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas,
including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary
data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange,
as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust
regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition
among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In
2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges ``compete head to head to offer
real-time equity data products. These data products include the best
bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see
also Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, Case
No. 11-cv-2280 (D.C. Dist.) ] 24 (``NYSE and Direct Edge compete
head-to-head . . . in the provision of real-time proprietary equity
data products.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions,
and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order
flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive
constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current
market structure can be described as dispersed and complex'' with
``trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading
centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to
attract different types of market participants with varying trading
needs.'' \12\ More recently, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchange-listed equities is ``intense''
and divided among many trading venues, including exchanges, more than
40 alternative trading systems, and more than 250 broker-dealers.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 2013 to June 30,
2014, no exchange traded more than 12% of the volume of listed
stocks by either trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for trading activity.
See https://www.arcavision.com/Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
    \13\ Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage
Conference (June 5, 2014) (available on the Commission Web site),
citing Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ``OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS
OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks,'' at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an exchange succeeds in competing for quotations, order flow,
and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the
value of its proprietary market data products because they will contain
greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less
successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then
its market data products may be less desirable to customers in light of
the diminished content and data products offered by competing venues
may become more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to
maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
    In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters,
the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline
based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a
surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary
products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE Order Imbalances
in the legacy format unless their customers request it, and customers
will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless NYSE Order Imbalances
can provide value in the legacy formats by sufficiently increasing
revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that
will offset the fees. The Exchange has provided customers with adequate
notice that it intends to discontinue dissemination of the data feed in
the legacy format. Therefore, the proposed Decommission Extension Fee
would only be applicable to those customers who have a need or desire
to continue to take the data feed in the legacy format beyond the
period provided for migration to the XDP format. Customers who timely
migrate to the XDP format to receive the data feed would not need to
receive the data feed in the legacy format and therefore would not be
subject to the Decommission Extension Fee at all. All of these factors
operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2016-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-73. 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-NYSE-2016-73, and should be
submitted on or before December 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27596 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38614-38616]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15837]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF12-2-000]

Northwest Pipeline, GP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kalama Lateral Pipeline
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Meeting

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Kalama Lateral Pipeline
Project, which would involve construction and operation of a new
natural gas pipeline and associated facilities by Northwest Pipeline,
GP (Northwest) in Cowlitz County, Washington. The Commission will use
this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project
is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on July 23, 2012.
    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the
public scoping meeting scheduled as follows:

FERC Public Scoping Meeting, Kalama Lateral Pipeline Project, Tuesday,
July 10, 2012, 7:00 p.m. PST, Red Lion Hotel and Conference Center, 510
Kelso Drive, Kelso, WA 98626.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC titled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Northwest provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Planned Project

    Northwest plans to construct and operate approximately 3 miles of
16-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline to provide 62,888 Dekatherms per
day (Dth/d) of natural gas to a planned 346 megawatt (MW) natural gas-
fired electricity generating power plant (the Kalama Energy Center) to
be located within the north industrial area of the Port of Kalama, in
Cowlitz County, Washington. The environmental impact of the proposed
Kalama Energy Center would be evaluated as part of the State
Environmental Policy Act process for the state of Washington.
    The Kalama Lateral Pipeline Project would transport natural gas to
the Kalama Energy Center from Northwest's existing Ignacio/Sumas
mainline in Cowlitz County, Washington. The project would require new
appurtenances to tie the new pipeline into the existing mainline
including a new tap and valve. Pig launcher facilities \1\ would be
installed near the planned interconnection with the mainline and at a
new meter station facility constructed within the Kalama Energy Center.
The new meter station facility would include standard appurtenances,
piping, and buildings within an approximately 150 foot by 200 foot
fenced area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that is inserted into and moves through
the pipeline, and is used for cleaning the pipeline, internal
inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general location of the planned facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to page 5 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities would
disturb approximately 183.4 acres of land. Following construction,
about 33.9 acres would be maintained within permanent easements for
ongoing operation of the pipeline, aboveground facilities, and
permanent access roads. The remaining acreage disturbed during
construction would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses.
These acreage estimates are based on Northwest's general intention to
construct its pipeline using a 100-foot-wide right-of-way and to retain
a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Public safety;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Land use.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the planned
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. We will present
our independent analysis of the issues in the EA. The EA will be
available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and
distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will

consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to
the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider your
comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section beginning on page 5 of this notice.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit the SHPO's views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific
Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the
project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples
include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, and
access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities, the
preliminary information provided by Northwest, our attendance at
Northwest's open house meetings held in January 2012, site visits to
the project area, and information provided by potentially affected
landowners.
    These issues identified include:
     Geologic hazards;
     Effect on nearby residential structures;
     Public safety;
     Waterbody and wetland crossings; and
     Alternative routing considerations.
    This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your
comments and our analysis.

Public Participation

    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 your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before July 23,
2012.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (PF12-2-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for
interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please
select ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    When the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to
the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you
would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Northwest files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at 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., PF12-
2). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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 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 www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: June 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15837 Filed 6-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29196-29197]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-477-000]

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on June 4, 2019, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
(Mountain Valley), 2200 Energy Drive, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317,
filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205 and
157.208 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Mountain Valley's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP16-10-000. Mountain Valley
requests authorization to install a new metering and regulating
station, associated piping, and a tap site in Monroe County, West
Virginia to allow Mountain Valley to deliver up to approximately 1.0
billion cubic feet per day to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC's KA
System, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open
to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web
at 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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Matthew T. Eggerding, Assistant General Counsel, 2200 Energy Drive,
Canonsburg, PA 15317, or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR
385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant
to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a
protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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.

    Dated: June 14, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13131 Filed 6-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8229-8230]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02828]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0033; FRL-10004-98-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Control of Emissions From the
Manufacturing of Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Other Allied
Surface Coating Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by
Missouri on February 15, 2019. The submission revises a Missouri
regulation that controls emissions from facilities that manufacture
paints, varnishes, enamels, and other allied surface coating products.
The revisions to this rule include adding incorporations by reference
to other State rules, including definitions specific to the rule,
revising unnecessarily restrictive language, making other
administrative wording changes, and do not impact the stringency of the
SIP or air quality. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency
between state and federally-approved rules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0033 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Stone, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0033, at https://www.regulations.gov. 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, 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.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to 10 Code of State
Regulation (CSR) 10-2.300, Control of Emissions from the Manufacturing
of Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels and Other Allied Surface
Coating Products in the Missouri SIP. Missouri made several revisions
to the rule. These revisions are described in detail in the technical
support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action.
    Missouri received four comments from EPA during the comment period.
Missouri responded to all comments as noted in the State submission
included in the docket for this action. Missouri responded to EPA's
comments and, as described in the TSD for this action, amended the rule
in response to some of EPA's comments. EPA finds that Missouri has
adequately addressed the comments.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to this rule
because it will not have a negative impact on air quality.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from June 15, 2018,
to September 6, 2018, and received four comments. The State revised the
rule based on the comments submitted. In addition, as explained above
and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of
this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of
the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's request to revise 10 CSR
10-2.300. We are processing this as a proposed action because we are
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Missouri Regulations described in the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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 the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 6, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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 AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-2.300'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
       Missouri citation                  Title            effective   EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                              date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Chapter 2--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-2.300.......................  Control of Emissions       2/28/2019  [Date of           ......................
                                  from Manufacturing of                 publication of
                                  Paints, Varnishes,                    the final rule
                                  Lacquers, Enamels and                 in the Federal
                                  Other Allied Surface                  Register],
                                  Coating Products.                     [Federal
                                                                        Register
                                                                        citation of the
                                                                        final rule].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-02828 Filed 2-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P