[Federal Register: August 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 40588-40589]
[DOCID:fr12au09-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0540; FRL-8427-5]

Bromonitrostyrene; Product Cancellation Order

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellation of
products containing the pesticide bromonitrostyrene, pursuant to
section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended. This cancellation order follows an August 27,
2008 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the
bromonitrostyrene registrants to voluntarily cancel all their
bromonitrostyrene product registrations. These are the last
bromonitrostyrene products registered for sale or distribution in the
United States. In the August 27, 2008 Notice, EPA indicated that it
would issue an order accepting the requests for voluntary cancellation
and implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received
substantive comments within the 30-day comment period that would merit
its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants
withdrew their requests within this period. The Agency did not receive
any comments on the notice. Further, the registrants did not withdraw
their requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a
cancellation order accepting the requested cancellations and cancelling
the affected registrations. Any distribution, sale, or use of the
bromonitrostyrene products subject to this cancellation order is
permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including
any existing stocks provisions.

DATES: The cancellations are effective August 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ShaRon Carlisle, Antimicrobials
Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including

environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical
industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the
sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. 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. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0540. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation of all end-use and
manufacturing-use bromonitrostyrene products registered under section 3
of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration
number in Table 1 of this unit.

            Table 1.--Bromonitrostyrene Product Cancellations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Registration No.                       Product Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
464-683                                     Giv-Gard BNS 25% AF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
464-684                                     Bioban BNS 25% BA Industrial
                                             Preservative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
464-686                                     Canguard 777 Industrial
                                             Preservative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
74655-5                                     Spectrum RX-41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
74655-8                                     Spectrum RX -45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
74655-13                                    Spectrum RX -52
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record
for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in
sequence by EPA company number.

      Table 2.--Registrants of Cancelled Bromonitrostyrene Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA Company No.                 Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
464                                         The Dow Chemical Company
                                            1500 E. Lake Cook Road
                                            Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
------------------------------------------------------------------------
74655                                       Hercules Incorporated Paper
                                             Technology and Ventures
                                            7910 Baymeadows Way
                                            Jacksonville, FL 32256
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

     During the public comment period provided, EPA received no
comments in response to the August 27, 2008 Federal Register notice (73
FR 50614; FRL 8378-4) announcing the Agency's receipt of the requests
for voluntary cancellation of all Bromonitrostyrene products.

IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested
cancellations of Bromonitrostyrene registrations identified in Table 1
of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency orders that the Bromonitrostyrene
product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are hereby
cancelled. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the
products identified in Table 1 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with
any of the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks set forth in
Unit VI. will be considered a violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The cancellation order issued in this notice
includes the following existing stocks provisions.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Bromonitrostyrene,
Antimicrobials.

    Dated: July 20, 2009.
Joan Harrigan Farrelly,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-19312 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67596-67600]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27566]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0846; FRL-9751-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana--Air Quality,
Subchapter 7, Subchapter 16 and Subchapter 17

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve new rules and revisions as
submitted by the State of Montana on September 23, 2011, as revisions
to Montana's State Implementation Plan. Montana adopted these rules on
December 2, 2005, and March 23, 2006. The new rules adopted on December
2, 2005, became state-effective on January 1, 2006; the new rules and
revisions adopted on March 23, 2006, became state-effective on April 7,
2006. These new rules and revisions meet the requirements of the Clean
Air Act and EPA's minor new source review regulations. The intended
effect of this action is to propose to approve these rules as they are
consistent with the Clean Air Act. This action is being taken under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0846, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0846. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov web site 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 email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. What is being addressed in this proposed action?
III. What Authorities Apply to EPA's Proposed Action
IV. EPA's Review and Proposed Action on SIP Revisions
V. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials ARM mean or refer to the Administrative Rule of
Montana.
    (iii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iv) The initials MACT mean Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
    (v) The initials MAQP mean Montana Air Quality Permit.
    (vi) The initials MRR mean Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping.
    (vii) The initials NAAQS mean National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
    (viii) The initials NESHAP mean National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants.
    (ix) The initials NSR mean or refer to new source review, a phrase
intended to encompass the stationary source regulatory programs that
regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources as
provided under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I,

parts C and D, and 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166, which includes new
source review for both major and minor sources.
    (x) The word Program mean or refer to the Montana Oil and Gas
Registration Program, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (xi) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (xii) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. 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:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. 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.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is being addressed in this proposed action?

    On September 23, 2011 the State of Montana submitted new rules and
revisions to revise the Montana SIP. The submission contains new rules
I-VI, codified as Administrative Rule of Montana (ARM) 17.8.1601,
17.8.1602, 17.8.1603, 17.8.1604, 17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606, pertaining
to the regulation of oil and gas well facilities. EPA is proposing to
approve these new rules in this notice. The Montana Board of
Environmental Review (Board) adopted these new rules to the existing
SIP on December 2, 2005.
    This submission also contains new rules I-IX, codified as ARM
17.8.1701, 17.8.1702, 17.8.1703, 17.8.1704, 17.8.1705,17.8.1710,
17.8.1711, 17.8.1712 and 17.8.1713 pertaining to the regulation of oil
and gas well facilities. EPA is proposing to approve these rule
submissions in this action. The Board adopted these new rules to the
existing SIP on March 23, 2006.
    This submission contains revisions to ARM 17.8.744 which were
adopted on March 23, 2006. The proposed revisions to ARM 17.8.744 are a
conforming change because of the addition of new rules.
    The proposed approval of the revised and new rules listed above
would establish a registration system for oil and gas well facilities
that presently require a Montana minor NSR air quality permit under the
SIP regulations. The proposed new rules would allow the owner or
operator of an oil or gas well facility to register with the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in lieu of submitting a
permit application and obtaining a permit to construct or modify the
source before commencing construction or modification. Currently, with
specific exemptions, the administrative rules adopted under the Montana
Clean Air Act and approved by the EPA into the SIP, require the owner
or operator of sources of air pollution to obtain a permit prior to
construction or modification.
    Montana originally submitted these rules on October 16, 2006 and
November 1, 2006, to EPA for inclusion into the SIP. EPA proposed to
disapprove these submittals on January 6, 2011 (76 FR 758). EPA had
several concerns with the Program, as was explained in 76 FR 758. In
March of 2011, the State withdrew the October 16, 2006, and November 1,
2006, submittals and, after several discussions between EPA and the
State, Montana resubmitted the oil and gas rules on September 23, 2011.
The State's September 2011 submittal included a revised CAA section
110(l) demonstration and other supplemental data, which addressed the
concerns we raised in our 76 FR 758 proposed action.

III. What Authorities Apply to EPA's Proposed Action

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states, ``[e]ach revision to an
implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The
Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any
other applicable requirement of this Act.''
    A demonstration is necessary to show that this revision will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those
for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead,
nitrogen oxides or any other requirement of the Act. Therefore, EPA
will approve a SIP revision only after a state has demonstrated that
such a revision will not interfere (``noninterference'') with
attainment of the NAAQS, rate of progress, reasonable further progress
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a minor
NSR program in their SIP to regulate modifications and new construction
of stationary sources within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS
are achieved. EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-164 are
intended to ensure that new source growth is consistent with
maintenance of the NAAQS and 40 CFR 51.160(e) requires states to
identify types and sizes of facilities which will be subject to review
under their minor NSR program. For sources identified under 40 CFR
51.160(e), section 51.160(a) requires that the SIP include legally
enforceable procedures that enable a state or local agency to determine
whether construction or modification of a facility, building, structure
or installation, or combination of these will result in a violation of
applicable portions of the control strategy; or interference with
attainment or maintenance of a national standard in the state in which
the proposed source (or modification) is located or in a neighboring
state. Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes states from
changing the requirements of the SIP except through SIP revisions
approved by EPA. SIP revisions will be approved by EPA only if they
meet all

requirements of section 110 of the CAA and the implementing regulations
at 40 CFR part 51. See CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104.
    EPA has also issued several guidance memoranda that explain the
Agency's requirements for practicable enforceability for purposes of
effectively limiting a source's potential to emit (See docket).
    EPA recognizes that, under the applicable federal regulations,
states have broad discretion to determine the scope of their minor NSR
programs as needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS. A state may tailor
its minor NSR requirements as long as they are consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51. States may also provide a rationale for
why the rules are at least as stringent as the 40 CFR part 51
requirements where the revisions are different from those in 40 CFR
part 51.
    Since there are no ambient air quality standards for air toxics,
the area's compliance with any applicable maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards, as well as, any federal mobile source
control requirements under CAA sections 112 or 202(l) would constitute
an acceptable demonstration of noninterference for air toxics.
    Section 110(l) does not require a demonstration of noninterference
for changes to federal requirements that are not included in the SIP. A
revision to the SIP, however, cannot interfere with any federally
mandated program such as a MACT standard (or related section 112
requirements).

IV. EPA's Review and Proposed Action on SIP Revisions

    EPA is proposing to approve the new and revised rules as submitted
by Montana on September 23, 2011, as identified above.
    As discussed above, any minor NSR SIP revision submittal must meet
section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) of the Act indicates that EPA
cannot approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in Section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In a memo from Richard R. Long, Director,
Region 8 Air and Radiation Program, to the Montana Board of
Environmental Review on January 30, 2006 (see docket) we stated that
MDEQ should provide an appropriate analysis showing that the proposed
new rules will not impact the NAAQS or prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments. One of the concerns EPA expressed in 76
FR 758 related to the cumulative effect of numerous registration
sources. We recommended that MDEQ perform a screening cumulative impact
analysis showing what effect oil and gas well facilities would have on
the ozone, NO2, SO2 and PM NAAQS and PSD
increments. MDEQ performed such an analysis. (See docket, demonstration
of noninterference pages 1-42 and attachments 1-11.) MDEQ's analysis
went back prior to 2006, when Montana began implementing the Oil and
Gas Registration Program as a state-approved rule, and provided data on
the amount of oil and gas registration applications received.
Monitoring and modeling data for all NAAQS pollutants from 2006 to
present shows that the Oil and Gas Registration Program has not
interfered with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS, PSD increment,
or any other requirement of the Act. Therefore, EPA has sufficient
information to determine that the proposed new and revised rules would
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS, PSD increments, or any other requirement of
the Act.
    EPA expressed concerns in 76 FR 758 that the new rules do not meet
the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.160(a)(1),
which require that SIP revision submittals be enforceable. The
September 23, 1987, Memorandum from J. Craig Potter, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, and Thomas L. Adams Jr., Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, entitled
``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability
and Legal Sufficiency'' provides EPA's guidance for interpreting this
provision in the Act.
    EPA initially viewed the new rules as a stand-alone program, which
was not subject to provisions in the other parts of ARM 17.8. As such,
we were concerned that the new and revised rules did not set forth
legally enforceable procedures that would enable the State or local
agency to determine whether construction of a minor source facility
would result in interference with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS (40 CFR 51.160(a)) and that such procedures did not include a
means by which the State or local agency to prevent construction of a
minor source facility if it would result in interference with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS (40 CFR51.160(b)). In 76 FR 758,
EPA did not consider other requirements in ARM 17.8 as being applicable
to the Program. However, after reviewing the State's 110(l)
demonstration and the requirements in ARM 17.8, it is clear that the
rules in ARM 17.8 subchapters 1-6 and portions of subchapter 7 apply to
the State's new rules for oil and gas facilities registration. (See
110(l) demonstration pages 2-9 and attachments 2 and 3 of the state's
110(l) analysis.) These subchapters provide, for example, testing
requirements, source testing protocol, malfunction procedures,
enforcement procedures, and specific ambient air monitoring
requirements for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the new and revised
rules which we are proposing for approval in this notice are in
compliance with CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A), 40 CFR 51.160(a) and 40 CFR
51.160(b).
    EPA also had concerns that a source did not need to provide notice
to the State before construction begins. The new and revised rules
allow sources to operate and emit criteria pollutants up to 60 days
before submitting a registration or permit application; therefore there
is no requirement that the State be notified before construction
begins. However, the new rules in ARM 17.8.16 contain numerous
safeguards that facilities must operate under until the MDEQ approves
the registration or permit application. These safeguards include:
limiting production; limiting hours of operation and/or fuel
consumption to ensure that the facility's potential to emit is below
major source thresholds (17.8.1604); emission control requirements
(17.8.1605); inspection and repair requirements (17.8.1608); and
reporting and recordkeeping requirements (17.8.1609). Sources must also
comply with requirements in ARM 17.8.1 (general requirements), ARM
17.8.2 (ambient standards), and ARM 17.8.3 (emission standards), in
addition to all other applicable requirements in ARM 17.8. Therefore,
EPA concludes that the new and revised rules do not violate 40 CFR
51.160(a) and 40 CFR 160(b).
    EPA also had concerns that the Program did not include the
necessary monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping (MRR) requirements
required for an oil and gas registration program to ensure
accountability and provide a means to determine compliance. However,
EPA did not consider the requirements of other subchapters of chapter 8
when considering MRR requirements. As described in the State's
submittal (110(l) demonstration, Table 1 (pages 3-15) and Table 2
(pages 18-21), the MRR requirements in ARM 17.8.1 (General
Requirements), ARM 17.8.2 (Ambient Air Quality), ARM 17.8.3 (Emission
Standards) are all applicable to registered sources, in addition to the

MRR requirements in ARM 17.8.1605 and ARM 17.8.1713. Therefore, EPA
proposes to find that the MRR requirements for a registered oil and gas
facility are at least as stringent as what would be required for an oil
and gas facility that would operate under a Montana Air Quality Permit
(MAQP). The SIP approved MAQP rules contain no specific MRR
requirements. Instead, a permitted facility is given MRR requirements
through the actual permit. In existing MAQP regulations (ARM 17.8.7),
the MRR requirements are specified in the facility permit pursuant to a
case-by-case best available control technology analysis rather than
uniform rule conditions.
    EPA also finds that the regulatory provisions in 40 CFR 51.160(c),
40 CFR 51.160(d), 40 CFR 51.160(e) and 40 CFR 51.160(f), are met by the
requirements in ARM 17.8.1703 (Registration Process and Information),
ARM 17.8.1705 (Operating Requirements: Facility-Wide) and the
requirements in ARM 17.8.1. The MDEQ issued a Notice of Public Hearing
and allowed for public comment (see submittal, tabs 19 and 20), which
meets the requirements in 40 CFR 51.161 (public availability of
information). The requirements in 40 CFR 51.164 (stack height
procedures) are met in ARM 17.8.4 (stack heights and dispersion
techniques).
    EPA also expressed concerns in 76 FR 758 with new rule ARM
17.8.1703(7), which provides that ``The owner or operator of a
registration eligible facility for which a valid MAQP has been issued
may register with the department and request a revocation of the
MAQP.'' In 76 FR 758, EPA concluded this was a relaxation under CAA
section 110(l), because it provides an exemption from SIP requirements
not previously available to sources. This SIP relaxation would create a
risk of interference with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and
control strategy. EPA lacked sufficient information to determine that
17.8.1703(7) would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS, PSD increment, or any other requirement of the Act.
    Montana issued approximately 30 MAQPs to oil and gas well
facilities prior to implementing the oil and gas registration program.
A comparison of MAQP requirements and registration requirements (see
the state's110(l) analysis, pages 19-21) show comparable requirements.
    EPA also expressed concerns in 76 FR 758 with new rule ARM
17.8.1712(1), which provides that, ``[l]eak detection methods may
incorporate the use of sight, sound, or smell.'' After further review,
we propose to find that this language is approvable because ARM
17.8.1712(1) is similar to EPA regulatory requirements in 40 CFR part
63, subpart BBBBBB and will not interfere with any applicable
requirements of the Act. EPA notes that 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB
provides similar leak detection methods using sight, sound, and smell.
This regulation applies to area sources under the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for Source Category:
Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline
Facilities. EPA determined for this source category it was appropriate
to allow leak detection methods using sight, sound, and smell.

V. Summary of Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to ARM 17.8.744 and new rules
I-VI, codified as ARM 17.8.1601, 17.8.1602, 17.8.1603, 17.8.1604,
17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606, pertaining to the regulation of oil and gas
well facilities, and new rules I-IX, codified as ARM 17.8.1701,
17.8.1702, 17.8.1703, 17.8.1704, 17.8.1705,17.8.1710, 17.8.1711,
17.8.1712 and 17.8.1713 pertaining to the regulation of oil and gas
well facilities, as submitted by the State of Montana on September 23,
2011.
    EPA is proposing to approve the new and revised rules as identified
in this action and EPA is proposing approval based upon sufficient
information to determine that the requested revision to add the new oil
and gas registration program to the Montana SIP will not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress as required by CAA Section 110(l), or any other requirement of
the Act. The new and revised rules comply with section 110(a)(2)(C),
which requires states to include a minor NSR program in their SIP to
regulate modifications and new construction of stationary sources
within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved. EPA also
finds the new and revised rules comply with 40 CFR 51.160-40 CFR 51.164
and meet the requirements for appropriate MRR. EPA is also proposing to
approve ARM 17.8.744 as these revisions are conforming changes to the
addition of new rules.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds, New Source Review, Minor New Source Review,
Permitting, Incorporation by reference.

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

    Dated: October 19, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-27566 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28154-28157]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10959]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the California High Speed Rail
System San Francisco to San Jose Section, CA

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: Through this NOI, FRA announces its intent to jointly prepare
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) for the
San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California High-Speed Rail
(HSR) System, Blended System Project (Blended System Project or
Project). FRA invites the public and all interested parties to provide
comments on the scope of the EIR/EIS, including the proposed purpose
and need, the alternatives to consider, potential environmental impacts
of concern, and methodologies for analysis of impacts. Through this
NOI, FRA also rescinds its December 2008 NOI for the San Francisco to
San Jose Section.
    FRA and the Authority will develop the EIR/EIS in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). FRA and the Authority will
hold scoping meetings and outreach activities as part of the NEPA/CEQA
process. Federal cooperating agencies for the EIR/EIS are the Surface
Transportation Board (STB) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE).

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the San Francisco to San Jose
Section EIR/EIS must be provided to the Authority by June 8, 2016.
    Public scoping meetings are scheduled in May 2016: FRA and the
Authority will hold the scoping meetings between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00
p.m. at the following dates:
     San Francisco: Monday, May 23, 2016.
     San Mateo: Tuesday, May 24, 2016.
     Mountain View: Wednesday, May 25, 2016.
    The Authority will make scoping materials and information
concerning the scoping meetings available on the Authority's Web site:
http://hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Statewide_Rail_Modernization/project_sections/sanfrancisco_sanjose.html.

ADDRESSES: You can send written comments on the scope to Mr. Mark
McLoughlin, Director of Environmental Services, Attention: San
Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/EIS, California High-Speed Rail
Authority, 770 L Street, Suite 1160, Sacramento, CA 95814, or via email
with subject line ``San Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/EIS'' to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    You may provide comments orally or in writing at scoping meetings.
FRA and the Authority will hold the scoping meetings between 5:00 p.m.
and 8:00 p.m. at the following locations:
     San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco
Mission Bay, 11500 Owens Street, San Francisco, CA 94158.
     San Mateo: San Mateo Marriott, 1770 South Amphlett
Boulevard, San Mateo, CA 94402.
     Mountain View: SFV Lodge, 361 Villa Street, Mountain View,
CA 94041.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stephanie Perez, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Mr. Guy Preston, Regional Delivery Manager, California High Speed Rail
Authority, 100 Paseo de San Antonio, San Jose, CA 95113, Telephone:
(408) 277-1091 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA is an operating administration of the
U.S. Department of Transportation and is responsible for overseeing the
safety of railroad operations, including the safety of any proposed
high-speed ground transportation system. FRA is also authorized to
provide, subject to appropriations, funding for high-speed and
intercity passenger rail projects and is also authorized to provide
loans and other financial support for railroad investments. FRA is
conducting this review under NEPA because it may provide funding or
financing for this project in the future. STB and USACE are Federal
cooperating agencies on the EIS. STB has approval authority under

49 U.S.C. 10901 over the construction and operation of the proposed
California HSR System. USACE has jurisdiction under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
    The Authority was established in 1996 and is authorized and
directed by statute to undertake the planning and development of a
proposed statewide HSR network fully coordinated with other public
transportation services. In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed a
Final Program EIR/EIS for the Proposed California HSR System (Statewide
Program EIR/EIS), as the first phase of a tiered environmental review
process. The Statewide Program EIR/EIS analyzed a No Project/No Action
Alternative; a Modal Alternative involving expanding freeways,
airports, and conventional rail systems; and a HSR alternative using
electric propulsion and steel-wheel-on-steel-rail vehicles capable of
operating speeds of 220 mph on fully grade separated rail alignments
with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and communication systems. The
Authority certified the Statewide Program EIR under CEQA and approved
the proposed HSR System, and FRA issued a Record of Decision under NEPA
on the Statewide Program EIS.
    In approving the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, FRA and the Authority
selected the HSR Alternative for intercity travel in California between
the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay
Area in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San
Diego in the south. The Authority and FRA also selected certain
corridors/general alignments and general station locations for further
study; committed to mitigation strategies and design practices; and
specified further measures to guide the development of the HSR system
at the site-specific project level of environmental review to avoid and
minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. FRA and the Authority
did not select corridors or station locations between the Central
Valley and the Bay Area in 2005. Rather, they decided to prepare a
second program EIR/EIS for that area.
    In 2008, the Authority and FRA further evaluated alignments and
station locations within the broad corridor between and including the
Altamont Pass and the Pacheco Pass to connect the Bay Area and Central
Valley portions of the HSR system in the Bay Area to the Central Valley
High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS. Based on that EIR/EIS, the Authority
and FRA selected the Pacheco Pass--San Francisco and San Jose termini
network alternative, including corridor alignments and station location
options. The selected corridor alignment uses the Caltrain rail right-
of-way, between San Francisco and San Jose along the San Francisco
Peninsula, and the Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller Road, between San Jose
and the Central Valley.
    In December 2008, the Authority and FRA respectively issued a
notice of preparation and notice of intent to prepare an EIR/EIS for
the project-level San Francisco to San Jose Section of the proposed
California HSR System. In 2009, the Authority and FRA completed project
scoping and provided the public with alternatives screening documents.
These alternatives screening documents were for a rail corridor based
on an entirely grade separated a four-track system between San
Francisco and San Jose where HSR would share tracks with Caltrain
express commuter trains. Communities along the Caltrain corridor
expressed concerns with this proposal because of the perceived
magnitude of impacts to environmental and community resources. In
response to these concerns, the Authority suspended further work on the
EIR/EIS in mid-2011 to consider blending the HSR and Caltrain
operations within a smaller project footprint. In November 2011, the
Authority proposed blended operations for the HSR section between San
Francisco and San Jose, which would still provide HSR and Caltrain
service between the two cities without requiring a four-track system
for the Project.
    The San Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/EIS will describe the
Blended System Project in detail, identify site-specific environmental
impacts from construction, operation, and maintenance of the Blended
System Project; identify specific mitigation measures to address those
impacts; and incorporate appropriate design practices to avoid and
minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. The EIR/EIS will
describe the site characteristics, size, nature, and timing of the
proposed action as a basis for determining whether the impacts are
potentially significant and whether impacts can be avoided, minimized,
or mitigated. The Authority will provide information and documents
regarding this EIR/EIS on the Authority's Web site: http://www.hsr.ca.gov.
    The San Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/EIS will tier from, and
build upon, the Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Bay Area to Central
Valley HSR Program EIR/EIS consistent with Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and State CEQA Guidelines
(14 California Code of Regulations 15168(b)).
    In addition to the NEPA and CEQA process, the Authority is required
by law to publish a Business Plan, updated every two years, which
includes a description of service type, chronology of statewide
construction, estimate of capital costs per segment, operating and
maintenance costs, environmental review schedule, and discussion of
public and private funding availability. The Draft 2016 Business Plan,
which the Authority released in February, describes a phased
implementation of the statewide HSR system. The Draft 2016 Plan
prioritizes construction between San Jose and the Central Valley, but
also emphasizes the importance of extending HSR service from San
Francisco to San Jose as soon as possible.

Purpose and Need

    The purpose of the proposed HSR system is to provide a new mode of
high-speed intercity travel that would link major metropolitan areas of
the state; interface with international airports, mass transit, and
highways; and provide added capacity to meet increases in intercity
travel demand in California in a manner sensitive to and protective of
California's unique natural resources. The need for a HSR system is
directly related to the expected growth in population, and increases in
intercity travel demand in California over the next twenty years and
beyond. With the growth in travel demand, there will be an increase in
travel delays arising from the growing congestion on California's
highways and at airports. In addition, there will be negative effects
on the economy, quality of life, and air quality in and around
California's metropolitan areas from a transportation system that will
become less reliable as travel demand increases. The intercity highway
system, commercial airports, and conventional passenger rail serving
the intercity travel market are currently operating at or near
capacity, and will require large public investments for maintenance and
expansion to meet existing demand and future growth. The proposed HSR
System is designed to address some of the social, economic, and
environmental problems associated with transportation congestion in
California.
    The San Francisco to San Jose Section meets this purpose and need
by:
     Connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to the rest of the
statewide HSR system, including the Central Valley and Southern
California;
     Incorporating HSR into the intermodal hubs at San
Francisco, Millbrae and San Jose, thereby providing interfaces with
airports (San

Francisco International Airport and Norman J. Mineta San Jose
International Airport), mass transit (BART, Caltrain, Capitol Corridor,
Amtrak, and light-rail and bus services), and highways, resulting in
local and regional transportation hubs;
     Serving a large base of riders in the densely populated
San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas; and
     Reaching station locations with existing and planned
transit oriented development potential.

Alternatives

    The San Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/EIS will consider a No
Action or No Project Alternative and one or more HSR Alternatives for
the San Francisco to San Jose corridor. The San Francisco to San Jose
Section of the HSR system would connect to the San Jose to Merced
Section at Diridon Station, which would extend HSR service from the San
Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley and Southern California.

No Action Alternative

    The No Action Alternative (No Project or No Build) represents
conditions in the San Francisco to San Jose corridor as they exist in
2016, and as they would exist in future years based on projected
growth, programmed and funded improvements to the intercity
transportation system, and other reasonably foreseeable projects
through the implementation of Phase 1 operations in 2029, and a future
year of operation in 2040. The No Action alternative takes into account
the following sources of information: State Transportation Improvement
Program; Regional Transportation Plans for all modes of travel; airport
plans; intercity passenger rail plans; and city and county plans.

HSR Blended System Alternative(s)

    The Blended System Project would follow the Caltrain right-of-way
from San Francisco to San Jose. It would utilize existing and in-
progress infrastructure Caltrain developed for its electrification
project, but require construction in addition to electrification. The
Blended System Project is anticipated to include the following, subject
to continued planning and engineering following the scoping/outreach
process:

New and/or Upgraded Infrastructure

     Track improvements to support higher speeds, including
upgrades of tracks, trackbeds, ties, interlockings, and possible curve
straightening;
     At least one passing track, with potential alternative
locations for the passing track;
     One terminal storage maintenance facility, with potential
alternative locations;
     Improvements to existing bridges necessary to accommodate
mixed traffic;
     Potential grade separations necessary to support blended
operations; and
     Installation of quad gates at remaining grade crossings.

Proposed Operations

     High-speed rail vehicles operating over mostly the same
tracks between San Francisco and San Jose;
     Speeds of up to 110 miles per hour; and
     Operations plan that would allow for up to 4 HSR vehicles
per hour/per direction in the peak period.

Upgrades to Existing Stations

     Raised and straightened platforms, platform screens (or
other safety features) and passenger facilities at 4th & King, Millbrae
and Diridon stations.

Transbay Transit Center (TTC) and Downtown Extension DTX projects

     The Authority proposes its Blended System Project will
reach the TTC in San Francisco via the planned 1.3-mile extension of
passenger rail track from the current terminus at the Caltrain 4th and
King station.
     The Transbay Joint Powers Authority is the state lead
agency for both projects, which have been the subject of separate
environmental review.
     The TTC is currently under construction. The DTX is not
yet under construction.
     Both projects will be addressed in the San Francisco to
San Jose Section EIR/EIS.

During the Programmatic review phase, FRA and the Authority selected
the Transbay Transit Center as the station location in the city of San
Francisco. However, the Authority anticipates that the 4th and King
Station would operate as an interim station until completion of the
Transbay Transit Center which the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is
constructing and funding. Other HSR stations would be located in the
city of Millbrae at the existing Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station, and in
the city of San Jose at the existing Diridon Station. FRA and Authority
selected these locations through the Bay Area to Central Valley HSR
Final Program EIR/EIS.

Probable Effects

    The EIR/EIS will evaluate and document the effects of the proposed
project on the physical, human, and natural environment. FRA and the
Authority will continue the tiered evaluation of all potentially
significant environmental, social, and economic impacts of the
construction and operation of the HSR system. The San Francisco to San
Jose EIR/EIS will address appropriate resource areas including:
Transportation, including impacts on existing passenger and freight
rail tenants; safety and security; land use and zoning; land
acquisition, displacements, and relocations; cumulative and secondary
impacts; cultural resource impacts, including impacts on historical and
archaeological resources; parklands/recreation areas; neighborhood
compatibility and environmental justice; geology and paleontology
impacts; natural resource impacts including air quality, wetlands,
water resources, noise and vibration, energy, wildlife and ecosystems,
including endangered species, energy and hazardous materials. The EIR/
EIS will also identify and evaluate measures to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate adverse impacts.
    The San Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/EIS will be prepared
consistent with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) and the CEQ's regulations implementing NEPA
at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. The San Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/
EIS also will address, as necessary, other applicable statutes,
regulations, and executive orders, including the Clean Air Act, Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) of 1966,
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.
    FRA funding or approval of the San Francisco to San Jose Section
would be a Federal undertaking with the potential to affect historic
properties. As such, it is subject to the requirements of Section 106.
Consistent with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (ACHP)
regulations implementing Section 106, FRA intends to coordinate
compliance with Section 106 of this Act with the preparation of the San
Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/EIS, beginning with the
identification of consulting parties in a manner consistent with the
standards set out in 36 CFR 800.8. Under the Programmatic Agreement
among FRA, ACHP, the California State Historic Preservation Officer,
and the Authority, FRA and the Authority will conduct a phased review
of effects on historic properties consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2).
FRA invites the public and interested parties to provide comments on
the potential effects of the proposed alternatives on historic
properties within the San Francisco to San Jose Section. In

response to this NOI, a member of the public or other interested party
may also request to participate in the Section 106 process as a
consulting party under 36 CFR part 800.

Scoping and Comments

    FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during
scoping and review of the resulting environmental documents. FRA
invites Native American Tribes, interested agencies, and the public at
large to participate in the scoping process to ensure the EIR/EIS
addresses the full range of issues related to the proposed action and
reasonable alternatives, and that all significant issues are
identified. FRA requests that any public agency having jurisdiction
over an aspect of the Project identify the applicable permit and
environmental review requirements of the agency and the scope and
content of the environmental information germane to the agency's
jurisdiction over the Project. Public agencies are requested to advise
FRA if they anticipate taking a major action in connection with the
proposed project and if they wish to participate as a cooperating
agency for the San Francisco to San Jose Section EIR/EIS.
    FRA and the Authority have scheduled public scoping meetings which
are an important component of the scoping process for both the State
and Federal environmental review. The Authority will advertise the
scoping meetings described in this NOI locally and be included with any
additional public notification.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2016.
Jamie Rennert,
Director, Office of Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2016-10959 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 20017]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06993]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2023-0016]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on February 7, 2023, Indiana
Northeastern Railroad Company, in partnership with the Fort Wayne
Railroad Historical Society (Petitioners), petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR part 240 (Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers).
FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2023-0016.
    Specifically, Petitioners request relief from Sec.  240.201(d),
which requires that only certified persons operate locomotives and
trains. The relief would allow noncertified persons to pay a fee and
operate a locomotive as part of a visitor experience program. In
support of its petition, Petitioners note that the relief would only
apply to persons participating in the program, and that participants
would be 18 years of age or older and under the direct supervision of a
certified and qualified locomotive engineer. Further, all movements
would take place during daylight hours and at restricted speed.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by June 5, 2023 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-06993 Filed 4-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5578-5579]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01748]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-10004-87-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Idaho Pole Co.
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
the deletion of the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils outside of
the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area of the Idaho Pole Co. Superfund Site
(Site) located in Bozeman, Montana from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This partial
deletion pertains to the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils
remedy component outside of the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area of the
Idaho Pole Company Superfund Site. The groundwater, sediments and
saturated subsurface soils are being addressed as part of the
groundwater remedy component and are not being considered for deletion
as part of this action. The EPA and the State of Montana, through the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance, monitoring-and five-year reviews, have been completed.
However, the deletion of the surface and unsaturated surface soils
outside of the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective January 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be

publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in http://www.regulations.gov;
by calling EPA Region 8 at<PHONE_NUMBER> and leaving a message; and at
the U.S EPA Montana Office, Federal Building, Suite 3200, 10 West 15th
Street, Helena, MT 59626, Hours: Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.; and the Bozeman Public Library, 626 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT
59715;<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: (Library hours vary).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Hoogerheide, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Montana Office, Federal Building, Suite 3200, 10 West
15th Street Helena, MT 59626:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
extension 1, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The portion of the site to be deleted from
the NPL is: Surface and unsaturated subsurface soils outside of the
Treated Soils Area of the Idaho Pole Co. Superfund Site in Bozeman,
Montana. A Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion for this Site was
published in the Federal Register (84 FR 34839) on July 19, 2019.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion was August 19, 2019 and extended to September 6, 2019. Two
written and three oral public comments were received and expressed
concerns about future redevelopment of the Site, the extent of the
Superfund investigation and remedy, as well as the source and fate of
the contaminants. The properties that were remediated under the
Superfund process have land and groundwater use restrictions placed on
them to ensure future redevelopment of the property will remain
protective of human health and the environment. A Notice of
Institutional Control was filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and
Recorder in 2010 on this 4.5 acres that applies restrictions on new
construction and excavation. EPA investigations identified all possible
sources of surface and unsaturated soils that needed cleanup.
Contaminated soils were excavated, treated and placed on-site. The 4.5
acre Treated Soils Area is the location where all treated soils were
placed after on-site treatment. Treated soils are located on the 4.5
acres that remain on the NPL. Additional data needs to be collected
before the Site's sediments can be deleted.
    EPA believes the partial deletion action is appropriate. A
responsiveness summary to public comments with supporting materials was
prepared and placed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005, on
www.regulations.gov, and in the local repositories listed above.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further remedial
action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted
from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without
application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of portions of a
site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability, in the
unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: January 22, 2020.
Gregory E. Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the listing
under Montana for ``Idaho Pole Co'' to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                          Site name                 City/county              Notes (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
MT....................................  Idaho Pole Co............  Bozeman..................                  P

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
  score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
 * * * * * * *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
 * * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 2020-01748 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30998-31001]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83522; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt a New Transaction Fee for Execution of Midpoint Extended Life
Orders

June 26, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on June 12, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Rule 7018 to adopt a new transaction fee for execution of Midpoint
Extended Life Orders.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, as discussed
below, the Exchange will begin assessing the proposed fees on July 2,
2018.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
June 1, 2018 (SR-NASDAQ-2018-043). On July [sic] 12, 2018, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing. This filing
makes technical corrections, provides further discussion of the
proposed change, and clarifies the statutory basis and burden on
competition discussions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
transaction fees at Rule 7018(a)(1)-(3) to charge no fee for execution
of Midpoint Extended Life Orders in the month of July 2018 if the
member executes at least 250,000 shares in Midpoint Extended Life
Orders in June 2018, and adopt a fee of $0.0006 per share executed for
execution of all other Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities with
a price of $1 or more. Transactions in Midpoint Extended Life Orders in
securities with a price less than $1 will remain at no cost.
    On March 7, 2018, the Commission approved the Exchange's proposal
to adopt a new Order Type, the Midpoint Extended Life Order.\4\ The
Midpoint Extended Life Order is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order
Attribute that is priced at the midpoint between the NBBO and that will
not be eligible to execute until the Holding Period of one half of a
second has passed after acceptance of the Order by the System. Once a
Midpoint Extended Life Order becomes eligible to execute by existing
unchanged for the Holding Period, the Order may only execute against
other eligible Midpoint Extended Life Orders. The Exchange has not
assessed a charge for Midpoint Extended Life Orders executions since
the Exchange began to offer them on March 12, 2018.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82825 (March 7,
2018), 83 FR 10937 (March 13, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-074).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82905 (March 20,
2018), 83 FR 12988 (March 26, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2018-021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 7018, the Exchange is proposing to assess fees for
certain Midpoint Extended Life Orders beginning July 2, 2018, while
continuing to provide a no fee tier for the month of July 2018 if a
member meets qualification criteria based on its activity in Midpoint
Extended Life Orders in June 2018. Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to assess no charge for execution of Midpoint Extended Life
Orders in the month of July 2018 if the member executes at least at
least [sic] 250,000 shares in Midpoint Extended Life Orders in the
immediately preceding month. Thus, the new fee will be applied
beginning July 2, 2018 based on the number of Midpoint Extended Life
Orders executed by the member in the month of June 2018. The Exchange
is also adopting a new fee of $0.0006 per share executed assessed for
execution of Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced at $1
or more applicable to members that do not qualify under the no cost
tier described immediately above. After July 2018, the Exchange will
assess a charge of $0.0006 per share executed assessed [sic] for
execution of any Midpoint Extended Life Order in a security priced $1
or greater. The proposed fees cover Orders in securities of any of the
three tapes.
    The Exchange believes that the market in Midpoint Extended Life
Orders has matured to the point that it can support the proposed
$0.0006 per share executed fee; however, the Exchange also believes
that promoting liquidity in Midpoint Extended Life Orders continues to
be warranted. Thus, the Exchange is proposing to not assess a fee for
executions of Midpoint Extended Life Orders in the month of July 2018
if members have at least 250,000 shares executed in Midpoint Extended
Life Orders in June 2018. Allowing transactions to occur at no cost if
a member provides a certain level of Midpoint Extended Life Order
liquidity will promote use of the Midpoint Extended Life Order, which
will in turn help bring continued overall liquidity in Midpoint
Extended Life Orders in securities priced $1 or more to the Exchange in
June 2018, since members may increase their activity in Midpoint
Extended Life Orders, and members that have not yet used Midpoint
Extended Life Orders may begin trading in them to benefit from the zero
fee tier. To the extent that members are provided

incentive to trade in Midpoint Extended Life Orders to meet the zero
fee tier qualification requirement, the benefit to liquidity should
continue to through July 2018 as members that qualified for the zero
fee tier take advantage of the zero fee trading for the month. Fees for
all Midpoint Extended Life Orders in June 2018 will remain at no cost.
In addition, the Exchange is not proposing to adopt a new fee for
execution of Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities below $1 (Rule
7018(b)) whatsoever, which will continue to be allowed at no cost.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 7018(a)(1)-(3)
to note: (1) That members executing a Midpoint Extended Life Order will
be assessed a charge of $0.0000 per share executed in the month of July
2018 if the member executes at least 250,000 shares in Midpoint
Extended Life Orders in June 2018; and (2) that all other members will
be assessed a fee of $0.0006 per share executed, for executions of
Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced $1 or more.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \9\
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\10\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \10\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \11\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed $0.0006 per share executed fee is reasonable because
the Exchange has considered the nature of the market in Midpoint
Extended Life Orders, the need to assess a fee to help cover the costs
of supporting trading on Nasdaq, and the Exchange's desire to continue
to promote use of Midpoint Extended Life Orders on the Exchange. Taking
these factors into consideration, the Exchange has determined that
$0.0006 per share executed is appropriate. The Exchange currently
assess [sic] a fee of $0.0007 per share executed for certain TFTY
Orders.\13\ The Exchange also assesses $0.0007 per share executed for
QCST and QDRK orders, except for QCST orders that execute on Nasdaq BX
for which there is no charge or credit.\14\ Thus, the lower fee is
similar to existing fees for Orders executed on the Exchange and may
promote use of Midpoint Extended Life Orders and consequently the
quality of the market in Midpoint Extended Life Orders. The Exchange
also notes that a competitor exchange assesses a fee of $0.0009 per
share executed for both adding and removing all non-displayed liquidity
in securities priced $1 or more.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 7018(a)(1)-(3).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See Investors Exchange Fee Schedule, available at: https://iextrading.com/trading/fees/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed extensively in its proposal,\16\ the Exchange believes
that the Midpoint Extended Life Order is consistent with the Act
because it is emblematic of a core function of a national securities
exchange, namely matching buyers and sellers of securities on a
transparent and well-regulated market, and helping these buyers and
sellers come together to receive the best execution possible. The
Exchange achieves this by permitting Midpoint Extended Life Orders to
execute solely against other Midpoint Extended Life Orders at the
midpoint of the NBBO in return for providing market-improving behavior
in the form of a longer-lived midpoint order. Thus, the Exchange
believes that it is important for participants using Midpoint Extended
Life Orders to have a deep and liquid market. Applying a lower fee than
the $0.0030 per share executed that the Exchange assesses for removing
resting midpoint liquidity should provide incentive to market
participants to use Midpoint Extended Life Orders while also allowing
the Exchange to recoup some of the costs it incurs in offering the
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81311 (August 3,
2017), 82 FR 37248 (August 9, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-074).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that allowing transactions of Midpoint
Extended Life Orders at no cost in July 2018 is reasonable because it
currently offers them at no cost. In addition, the Exchange does not
charge a fee for transactions in Orders with a RTFY routing Order
Attribute.\17\ Such an Order must meet the definition of Designated
Retail Order, which requires, among other things, that the Order not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology.\18\ Thus, allowing transactions of the RTFY Order
Attribute at no cost is designed to promote the Exchange as a venue for
retail investor Orders. Likewise, the Exchange is proposing to allow
transactions in Midpoint Extended Life Orders at no cost in July 2018
to promote use of such Orders and consequently the quality of the
market in Midpoint Extended Life Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ RTFY is a routing option available for an order that
qualifies as a Designated Retail Order under which orders check the
System for available shares only if so instructed by the entering
firm and are thereafter routed to destinations on the System routing
table. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted to
the book. Once on the book, should the order subsequently be locked
or crossed by another market center, the System will not route the
order to the locking or crossing market center. RTFY is designed to
allow orders to participate in the opening, reopening and closing
process of the primary listing market for a security. See Rule
4758(a)(1)(A)(v)b.
    \18\ See Rule 7018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are an equitable
allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange

will apply the same fee to all similarly situated members. The Midpoint
Extended Life Order may be used by any market participant that is
willing to satisfy the requirements of the Order Type and meet the
volume requirement therefore qualify for the proposed zero fee tiers.
Moreover, members not interested in using Midpoint Extended Life Orders
will continue to have the ability to enter midpoint Orders in the
Nasdaq System, which have both fees and credits associated with their
execution.\19\ The Exchange is assessing fees for transactions in
Midpoint Extended Life Orders beginning July 2, 2018 and providing a
limited time during which transactions in Midpoint Extended Life Orders
may [sic] done at no cost. The proposed $0.0006 per share executed fee
is lower than most other fees assessed for executions, which is
reflective of the beneficial nature of the type of Order. Any member
may take advantage of the lower fee by using the Order Type. Similarly,
members will receive no charge in the month of July 2018 if it meets
the 250,000 share execution requirement of the tier. The Exchange
believes that 250,000 shares executed is a modest level that is
attainable by any member that chooses to enter Midpoint Extended Life
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Based on whether the member is removing or adding
liquidity. See Rule 7018(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the zero fee tier for July 2018, which
is based on the number of shares in Midpoint Extended Life Order
executed in June 2018, is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange has provided adequate notice of the
changes to all members so that they may adjust their trading behavior,
and any member may transact in Midpoint Extended Life Orders. Thus, all
members may execute 250,000 shares or more in Midpoint Extended Life
Orders in June 2018 to qualify for the zero cost tier in July 2018. The
Exchange also applies qualification criteria for rebates under Rule
7014 that are based on the prior month's activity. Specifically, the
DLP program under Rule 7014(f) provides three rebates that have
qualification criteria based on the level of ADV it had in the prior
month.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 7014(f)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last, the Exchange is not assessing a charge for executions in
Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced below $1 because
there are very few executions in such Orders relative to transactions
in Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced at $1 or greater.
Allowing such transactions at no cost will help promote a deeper market
in Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced below $1. Thus,
the Exchange believes that the no cost tier in Midpoint Extended Life
Orders in securities priced below $1 remains an equitable allocation
and is not unfairly discriminatory.

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposal to assess no fee for certain
executions of Midpoint Extended Life Orders and a modest fee of $0.0006
per share executed will not place any burden on competition, but rather
will help ensure continued growth in the use of Midpoint Extended Life
Orders by making such Orders attractive to members that seek to execute
at the midpoint with like-minded members, while also allowing the
Exchange to recoup some of the costs associated with offering the Order
Type. The proposal also reduces burdens on members associated with the
Exchange applying fees to an Order Type for which fees have not been
assessed. The new fee tiers will help members transition to fee liable
transactions by providing an opportunity to avoid paying a fee for a
transaction in Midpoint Extended Life Orders in July 2018 if they
choose to provide 250,000 or more shares executed in Midpoint Extended
Life Orders for the month of June 2018. To the extent the proposal is
not successful in promoting liquidity in Midpoint Extended Life Orders,
it would have no meaningful impact on competition as few transactions
in Midpoint Extended Life Orders would occur. In sum, if the proposal
to assess the new fee tiers for executions of Midpoint Extended Life
Orders is unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will not gain any market share and may lose market share.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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)(ii) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-047 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-NASDAQ-2018-047. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the

Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-047, and should be submitted
on or before July 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14109 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P