[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47004-47007]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18930]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0511; FRL-9915-006-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Removal of Two Operating Permits and a Consent Agreement for
the Potomac River Generating Station From the State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision removes from the Virginia SIP
references to two operating permits and a consent agreement for GenOn
Potomac River, LLC's Potomac River Generating Station (Potomac River),
which was formerly owned by Potomac Electric Power Company. Potomac
River has permanently shut down; therefore, the permits and consent
agreement are no longer applicable and are being removed from the
Virginia SIP. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 14, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 11,
2014. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0511 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0511, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0511. 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1979, EPA promulgated the 1-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm)
ground-level ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). See
44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). The Northern Virginia portion, consisting of
the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and
Stafford and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas,
and Manassas Park in Virginia was originally classified as part of the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA serious nonattainment area (the
Washington Area). See 40 CFR 81.347. On January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3411),
EPA determined that the Washington Area failed to attain the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999, as required by section 181(a) of the
CAA, and the Washington Area was reclassified to a severe ozone
nonattainment area pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA.
    As a result of the Washington Area's classification, each state,
including the Commonwealth of Virginia, was required to submit a SIP
demonstrating how attainment of the NAAQS would be met. In order to
demonstrate attainment, the Commonwealth of Virginia implemented state-
specific controls with the goal of limiting emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) from the area's electric utility plants to 0.15
pounds per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) of heat (fuel) input to
the boilers. As a coal-fired electric generating facility that emitted
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX, Potomac River,
located in Alexandria, Virginia, was identified as a source subject to
control, and a state operating permit was created as a vehicle for
implementing the control measure. EPA approved this permit into the SIP
on December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78100).
    Potomac River was also identified as a source subject to reasonably
available control technology (RACT) requirements. EPA defines RACT as
``the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility.'' See 44
FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979). In order to ensure compliance with the RACT
requirements for the control of VOCs, a state operating permit was
issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) for Potomac River and approved by EPA into the SIP on
January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8). In order to ensure compliance with the RACT
requirements for the control of NOX, a consent agreement was
entered between Virginia and the owner of Potomac River and approved by
EPA into the SIP on January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On May 10, 2013, VADEQ submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The
SIP revision consists of a request by the Commonwealth to remove from
the Virginia SIP the two operating permits and consent agreement
discussed above for Potomac River. On December 21, 2012, GenOn Potomac
River, LLC and VADEQ signed a mutual determination of permanent
shutdown of the Alexandria, Virginia facility. The SIP submission
includes a copy of the signed determination which: (1) Mutually agrees
that the source is permanently shutdown, (2) establishes that all
permits for the source in accordance with 9VAC5-20-220 are revoked, (3)
removes the source from the air emissions inventory, and (4)
establishes that any future operations must be in accordance with
Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program
pursuant to 9VAC5 Chapter 80. If Potomac River should resume operation
in the future, VADEQ may be required at that time to revise its SIP as
appropriate.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the May 10, 2013 submittal from VADEQ that removes
from the Virginia SIP the two operating permits and consent agreement
for Potomac River because the source has permanently shutdown and all
of the source's permits are revoked. EPA believes this revision will
not interfere with Virginia's attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.
This rule will be effective on October 14, 2014 without further notice
unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 11, 2014. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.

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

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 14, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action.
    This action to remove the two operating permits and a consent
agreement for Potomac River from the Virginia SIP may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 29, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

Sec.  52.2420  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the three entries entitled ``Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)-
Potomac River Generating Station [Permit to Operate]'', ``Potomac
Electric Power Company (PEPCO)--Potomac River Generating Station
[Consent Agreement]'', and ``Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)--
Potomac River Generating Station''.

[FR Doc. 2014-18930 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

FROM:  Keith Barnett, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD MMG

TO: Portland Cement Administrative Record

RE:  Summary of Mercury Test Data

	Attached to this memo are spreadsheets that summarize the available mercury test data.


[Federal Register: October 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 62135]
[DOCID:fr07oc10-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Notice of Adjustment of Disaster Grant Amounts

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount for
Small Project Grants to State and local governments and private
nonprofit facilities for disasters declared on or after October 1,
2010.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010, and applies to major disasters
declared on or after October 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207,
prescribes that FEMA must annually adjust the maximum grant amount made
under section 422, Small Project Grants, Simplified Procedure, relating
to the Public Assistance program, to reflect changes in the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of
Labor.
    FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount of any Small
Project Grant made to the State, local government, or to the owner or
operator of an eligible private nonprofit facility, under section 422
of the Stafford Act, to $63,900 for all disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2010.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers of 1.1 percent for the 12-month period
ended in August 2010. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor released the information on September 17, 2010.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-25329 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 222)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70654-70657]
[DOCID:fr18no10-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0013; FRL-9228-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; System Cap Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove severable portions of two
revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
State of Texas on May 1, 2001, and August 16, 2007, that create and
amend the System Cap Trading (SCT) Program at Title 30 of the Texas
Administrative Code, Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules, Subchapter
H--Emissions Banking and Trading, Division 5, sections 101.380,
101.382, 101.383, and 101.385. EPA is proposing disapproval of the SCT
program because the program lacks several necessary components for
emissions trading programs as outlined in EPA's Economic Incentive
Program Guidance. This action is being taken under section 110 and
parts C and D of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2005-TX-0013, by one of the following methods:
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below.
    (3) U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/
region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
    (4) Fax: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), at
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) Mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
    (6) Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2005-TX-0013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 along with any disk or CD-ROM
submitted. 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 and any form of encryption and should 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If
possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in
advance of your visit. A 15 cent per page fee will be charged for
making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check
in at the EPA Region 6 reception area on the seventh floor at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittals related to this SIP revision, and which are
part of the EPA docket, are also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's proposed rule, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air
Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever, any
reference to ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What did Texas submit?
III. What is the System Cap Trading Program?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the System Cap Trading Program?
V. TCEQ's Planned Withdrawal of the System Cap Trading Program
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove severable portions of two revisions
to the Texas SIP submitted by the State of Texas on May 1, 2001, and
August 16, 2007, specific to the System Cap Trading (SCT) Program.
Specifically, we are proposing to disapprove 30 TAC sections 101.380,
101.382, 101.383, and 101.385 submitted on May 1, 2001; and the
amendments to 30 TAC sections 101.383 and 101.385 submitted on August
16, 2007. Our analysis as presented in this proposed rulemaking action
finds the SCT Program to be inconsistent with EPA's Economic Incentive
Program Guidance, ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs'' (EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001) and our past

approval actions on Texas trading programs.

II. What did Texas submit?

    We are proposing to disapprove severable portions of two revisions
to the Texas SIP specific to the SCT Program. The first SIP submission
we are proposing to disapprove was adopted by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on March 21, 2001, and submitted to EPA on
May 1, 2001, at 30 TAC sections 101.380, 101.382, 101.383, and 101.385.
The second revision upon which we are proposing disapproval was adopted
by the TCEQ on July 25, 2007, and submitted to EPA on August 16, 2007,
at 30 TAC sections 101.383 and 101.385. The May 1, 2001, and August 16,
2007, SIP submittals create and amend the SCT Program.
    In addition to the sections identified above as the subject of
today's proposed disapproval, the TCEQ's submissions on May 1, 2001,
and August 16, 2007, also included other provisions for which we are
not proposing action today. Specifically, on May 1, 2001, the TCEQ also
adopted and submitted revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117, Control of Air
Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds, sections 117.109, 117.110, and
117.139. We are not proposing action today on the revisions to Chapter
117 because these revisions are severable from the SCT Program and EPA
has already taken a separate approval action (see 73 FR 73562 on
December 3, 2008). On August 16, 2007, the TCEQ also adopted and
submitted revisions to the general air quality definitions, the
Emission Credit Banking and Trading Program (referred to as the
Emission Reduction Credit (ERC) Program elsewhere in this document) and
the Discrete Emission Credit Banking and Trading Program (referred to
as the Discrete Emission Reduction Credit (DERC) Program elsewhere in
this document). We are not proposing action today upon revisions to the
general air quality definitions at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter A,
section 101.1 because the SCT Program does not rely upon them
(therefore the revisions are severable from the SCT Program) and
previous revisions to section 101.1 are still pending for review by
EPA. We are not proposing action today upon the revisions to the ERC
Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 1, sections
101.302 and 101.306 because these revisions are severable from the SCT
Program and EPA has already taken a separate approval action (see 75 FR
27647 on May 15, 2010). We are also not proposing action today upon the
revisions to the DERC Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H,
Division 4, sections 101.372 and 101.376 because these revisions are
severable from the SCT Program and EPA has already taken a separate
approval action (see 75 FR 27644 on May 15, 2010).
    A copy of the May 1, 2001, and August 16, 2007, SIP submittals can
be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the ``Docket'' section
above. A discussion of the specific Texas rule changes that we are
proposing to disapprove is included below.

III. What is the System Cap Trading Program?

    The SCT Program was designed by the TCEQ to provide additional
compliance flexibility to source owners and operators subject to the
system caps established in 30 TAC Chapter 117. Under this program,
sources under common ownership or control may be voluntarily grouped
together in a system with a system cap on total emissions from the
sources in the system. The Chapter 117 system caps establish daily,
rolling 30-day average, and annual average emission caps depending upon
the source's location. The Chapter 117 system caps enable participating
sources to transfer emission allowables (the amount greater than zero
that a source owner or operator's allowable emissions exceed the actual
emissions over the applicable averaging time period) from source to
source within the same system, provided the overall cap is not
exceeded. The SCT Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101 provides an additional
layer of compliance flexibility by allowing owners or operators of
units subject to the Chapter 117 system caps to trade surplus emission
allowables (the amount greater than zero that a source owner or
operator's allowable emissions in a system cap emission limit specified
in Chapter 117 is greater than the actual emissions in that system over
the applicable averaging time period) with other system caps within the
same attainment or nonattainment area to exceed the applicable Chapter
117 system cap limits. The SCT Program also streamlined the reporting
requirements for the participating sources by only requiring
notification to the TCEQ after the trades of surplus emission
allowables between system caps were completed. The SCT Program has not
been used by any source since the program was established in March
2001.

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the System Cap Trading Program?

    We reviewed the SCT program with respect to EPA's EIP Guidance
``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs'' (EPA-452/R-
01-001, January 2001) (EIP Guidance) (available in the docket for this
rulemaking) and for consistency with our past approval actions on the
Texas SIP-approved trading programs. Our analysis finds that the SCT
Program is not consistent with the EIP Guidance or with our past
actions on Texas trading programs. Namely, the SCT Program fails to:
     Satisfy the fundamental element of Surplus at 4.1(a) and
(b) of the EIP Guidance because the participating sources are not
clearly identified, and therefore EPA and the public are unable to
determine that all emission reductions under the SCT program are
surplus. It is essential that a trading program have a clearly
identified group of participating sources to ensure that the reductions
from these sources are surplus to all federal and state requirements,
and to facilitate trading among participating sources to promote a
robust market. Therefore, the SCT Program must clearly identify sources
subject to the program. Currently, 30 TAC section 101.380(2) includes
an incorrect citation and 30 TAC section 101.382 broadly references all
of 30 TAC Chapter 117 instead of identifying the subject sections.
     Satisfy the fundamental element of Enforceability at
4.1(a) and (b) of the EIP Guidance because the SCT Program does not
clearly identify violations and outline the penalties for the
participating sources as described in Sections 5.1(c) and 6.1 of the
EIP Guidance. Currently 30 TAC section 101.385 requires a source owner
or operator to notify the TCEQ when a Chapter 117 system cap emission
limit is exceeded as a result of participating in the SCT Program.
However, there are no penalty provisions or other mechanisms to provide
a disincentive for violating the emission limits.
     Provide an environmental benefit as described in Sections
5.1(a) and 6.5 of the EIP Guidance.
     Provide a program evaluation as described in Section
5.3(b) of the EIP Guidance. Such a program evaluation must occur every
3 years and provide remedies if the trading program does not have the
intended results, per Section 5.3(c) of the EIP Guidance. A program
evaluation or audit is an essential feature of a trading program
because it provides the TCEQ the time and authority to review the
functionality of the program and suggest remedies. Additionally, EPA
has SIP-approved audit provisions in the ERC, Mass Emissions Cap and
Trade (MECT), and DERC programs that specifically require

the TCEQ to evaluate the impact of the program on the state's ozone
attainment demonstrations and authorizes the TCEQ to suspend trading in
whole or in part if problems are identified. Because the SCT Program
operates in attainment and nonattainment areas, we find that analysis
of the program impacts on the state's ozone attainment demonstrations
is an essential feature that must be included.
     Address requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting consistent with Section 5.3(a) of the EIP Guidance.
     Provide TCEQ visibility of the trading process or
establish reliable tracking mechanism for emissions trading consistent
with Section 6.5(d) of the EIP Guidance. Participating sources in the
SCT Program only notify the TCEQ after the trades between system caps
occur. The TCEQ must have knowledge and visibility of the trading under
this program to anticipate and respond to issues that result from
trading between system caps.

V. TCEQ's Planned Withdrawal of the System Cap Trading Program

    During the preparation of this proposed rule notice, Region 6 staff
had several discussions with TCEQ staff about the SCT program, EPA's
evaluation of it, and the possibility of EPA proposing a conditional
approval of the program under section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air
Act.\1\ In response, Mr. Mark Vickery, the TCEQ Executive Director,
submitted a letter to EPA Region 6 on November 2, 2010, available in
the docket for this rulemaking. In this letter, the TCEQ stated that
they are unable to address EPA's concerns with the SCT Program through
rulemaking action within the time period specified under section
110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act. Moreover, TCEQ noted that its review of
the SCT Program indicated no use of the program by affected companies.
Finally, the TCEQ stated that it will seek approval from the
Commissioners to withdraw the SCT Program SIP submittals from EPA's
consideration and complete rulemaking to repeal the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 110(k)(4) authorizes EPA to approve a plan revision
based on a commitment by a state to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain, but not later than one year after the
date of the conditional approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding TCEQ's planned withdrawal, because that withdrawal
may not occur before December 31, 2010 (when EPA is scheduled to take
final action on these submissions under the consent decree in BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, No. 3-08CV1491 (N.D. Tex.)), EPA is proposing
action on these submissions at this time. If the submissions are not
withdrawn, and if the December 31, 2010 deadline remains in place, EPA
will take final action in December 2010.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to disapprove severable revisions to the Texas SIP
submitted on May 1, 2001, and August 16, 2007. Specifically from the
May 1, 2001, submittal, EPA is disapproving 30 TAC sections 101.380,
101.382, 101.383, and 101.385 that create the SCT Program. EPA is also
proposing to disapprove provisions revisions to the SCT Program at 30
TAC sections 101.383 and 101.385 as submitted on August 16, 2007. We
note that if TCEQ formally withdraws these two SCT Program SIP
submittals as discussed in the November 2, 2010, letter from TCEQ,
before EPA takes final action we will not need to take final action on
these submissions.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a mandatory requirement of the Act starts a sanctions
clock and a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clock. The provisions in
May 1, 2001, and August 16, 2007, SIP submittals creating and amending
the SCT Program were not submitted to meet a mandatory requirement of
the Act. Therefore, if EPA takes final action to disapprove the
submitted SCT Program SIP submittals, no sanctions and FIP clocks will
be triggered.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements
but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher
offset requirements) may, or will flow from this disapproval does not
mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 ``for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not 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. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves certain State requirements for
inclusion into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to
disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act and will not
in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: November 10, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-29146 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69765-69767]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28510]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76346; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Requiring Certain Member Organizations To Participate in Business
Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing in Connection With
Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity

November 4, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 26, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to require certain member organizations \4\
(``Members'') to participate in business continuity and disaster
recovery plans (``BC/DR Plans'') testing in connection with Regulation
Systems Compliance and Integrity (``Regulation SCI'').\5\ The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``member organization'' means a ``registered broker
or dealer (unless exempt pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934) (the ``Act'') that is a member of the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') or another registered
securities exchange. Member organizations that transact business
with public customers or conduct business on the Floor of the
Exchange shall at all times be members of FINRA. A registered broker
or dealer must also be approved by the Exchange and authorized to
designate an associated natural person to effect transactions on the
floor of the Exchange or any facility thereof. This term shall
include a natural person so registered, approved and licensed who
directly effects transactions on the floor of the Exchange or any
facility thereof. See Rule 2(b)(i). The term ``member organization''
also includes any registered broker or dealer that is a member of
FINRA or a registered securities exchange, consistent with the
requirements of section 2(b)(i) of this Rule, which does not own a
trading license and agrees to be regulated by the Exchange as a
member organization and which the Exchange has agreed to regulate.
See Rule 2(b)(ii).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November 19,
2014), 79 FR 72252 (December 5, 2014) (``SCI Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    As adopted by the Commission, Regulation SCI applies to certain
self-regulatory organizations (including the Exchange), alternative
trading systems (``ATSs''), plan processors, and exempt clearing
agencies (collectively, ``SCI entities''), and will require these SCI
entities to comply with requirements with respect to the automated
systems central to the performance of their regulated activities. Among
the requirements of Regulation SCI is Rule 1001(a)(2)(v), which
requires the Exchange and other SCI entities to maintain ``[b]usiness
continuity and disaster recovery plans that include maintaining backup
and recovery capabilities sufficiently resilient and geographically
diverse and that are reasonably designed to achieve next business day
resumption of trading and two-hour resumption of critical SCI systems
following a wide-scale disruption.'' \6\ As a matter of course, the
Exchange has put extensive time and resources toward planning for
system failures and already maintains robust BC/DR plans consistent
with the proposed rule. As set forth below, in connection with
Regulation SCI, the Exchange is proposing to require certain Members to
participate in testing of the operation of the Exchange's BC/DR plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.1001(a)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to an SCI entity's BC/DR plans, including its backup
systems, paragraph (a) of Rule 1004 of Regulation SCI requires each SCI
entity to: ``[e]stablish standards for the designation of those members
or participants that the SCI entity reasonably determines are, taken as
a whole, the minimum necessary for the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets in the event of the activation of such plans.'' \7\ Paragraph
(b) of Rule 1004 further requires each SCI entity to ``[d]esignate
members or participants pursuant to the standards established in
paragraph (a) of [Rule 1004] and require participation by such
designated members or participants in scheduled functional and
performance testing of the operation of such plans, in the manner and
frequency specified by the SCI entity, provided that such frequency
shall not be less than once every 12 months.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.1004(a).
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.1004(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with Rule 1004 of Regulation SCI, the Exchange proposes
to amend current Rule 438,\9\ governing mandatory testing of Exchange
backup systems as described below. The requirements of revised Rule 438
would apply to Members of the Exchange's equities market and to Users
\10\ of NYSE Bonds.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Current Rule 438 generally requires each member and member
organization to participate in industry testing of electronic
systems designed to prepare for the implementation of decimal
trading. The Exchange proposes to delete the text of the current
rule as it is obsolete and no longer applicable.
    \10\ A User means any Member or Member Organization, Sponsored
Participant, or Authorized Trader that is authorized to access NYSE
Bonds. See Rule 86(a)(2)(M).
    \11\ NYSE Bonds is the Exchange's electronic system for
receiving, processing, executing and reporting bids, offers and
executions in bonds. See Rule 86(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, in paragraph (a) of revised Rule 438, the Exchange proposes
to establish standards for the designation of Members that the Exchange
reasonably determines are, taken as a whole, the minimum necessary for
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets in the event of the
activation of the Exchange's business continuity and disaster recovery
plans.
    Second, in paragraph (b) of revised Rule 438, the Exchange proposes
to specify that Members that are designated pursuant to paragraph (a)
of revised Rule 438 would be required to participate in scheduled
functional and performance testing of the Exchange's business
continuity and disaster recovery plans, which shall not be less than
once every 12 months.
    Third, in paragraph (c) of revised Rule 438, the Exchange proposes
to make

clear that Designated Market Makers \12\ and Supplemental Liquidity
Providers \13\ that have been determined by the Exchange to contribute
a meaningful percentage of the Exchange's overall volume, measured on a
quarterly or monthly basis, will be required to participate in
scheduled functional and performance testing. The Exchange further
proposes that it may also consider other factors in determining the
Members that will be required to participate in scheduled functional
and performance testing, including average daily volume traded on the
Exchange measured on a quarterly or monthly basis, or Members who
collectively account for a certain percentage of market share on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Designated Market Maker'' (``DMM'') means an
individual member, officer, partner, employee or associated person
of a Designated Market Maker Unit who is approved by the Exchange to
act in the capacity of a DMM. See Rule 2(i).
    \13\ The term ``Supplemental Liquidity Provider'' means a member
organization that electronically enters proprietary orders or quotes
from off the Floor of the Exchange into the systems and facilities
of the Exchange and is obligated to maintain two-sided quotes in
each assigned security for some part of a trading day. See Rule
107B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, in paragraph (d) of revised Rule 438, the Exchange proposes
that at least three (3) months prior to a scheduled functional and
performance testing of the Exchange's business continuity and disaster
recovery plans, the Exchange will publish the criteria to be used by
the Exchange to determine which Members will be required to participate
in such testing and notify those Members that are required to
participate based on such criteria.\14\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed notice requirements are necessary to provide Members with
proper advance notice in the event they become subject to the proposed
rule. The proposed timeframes would also provide Members with adequate
time to prepare for the testing, including any systems changes needed,
to connect to the Exchange's backup systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange will publish the initial notice to Members no
later than November 3, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in paragraph (e) of revised Rule 438, the Exchange
proposes to make clear that Members not designated pursuant to
standards established in paragraph (a) of revised Rule 438 are
permitted to connect to the Exchange's backup systems and may
participate in testing of such systems. Proposed paragraph (e) is
consistent with Regulation SCI, which encourages ``SCI entities to
permit non-designated members or participants to participate in the
testing of the SCE entity's BC/DR plans if they request to do so.''
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See SCI Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 72350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it encourages all Members to connect to the
Exchange's backup systems and to participate in testing of such
systems. However, in adopting the requirements in revised Rule 438, the
rule will subject only those Members to mandatory testing that the
Exchange believes are, taken as a whole, the minimum necessary to
maintain fair and orderly markets. The Exchange believes that
designating Members to participate in mandatory testing because they,
for example, account for a significant portion of the Exchange's
overall volume or maintain exclusive responsibilities with respect to
Exchange-listed securities is a reasonable means to ensure the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal will ensure that the Members necessary to ensure the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market are properly designated
consistent with Rule 1004 of Regulation SCI. Specifically, as proposed,
the Exchange will adopt clear and objective criteria with respect to
the designation of Members that are required to participate in the
testing of the Exchange's BC/DR plans, as well as appropriate
notification regarding such designation. As set forth in the SCI
Adopting Release, ``SROs have the authority, and legal responsibility,
under Section 6 of the Exchange Act, to adopt and enforce rules
(including rules to comply with Regulation SCI's requirements relating
to BC/DR testing) applicable to their members or participants that are
designed to, among other things, foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.'' \18\ The Exchange believes
that this proposal is consistent with such authority and legal
responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See SCI Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 72350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. To the contrary, the proposal
is not a competitive proposal but rather is necessary for the
Exchange's compliance with Regulation SCI.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \21\ normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after
the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\22\
the Commission may

designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
as it will allow the Exchange to incorporate changes required under
Regulation SCI, such as establishing standards for designating BCP/DR
participants, prior to the November 3, 2015 compliance date.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \24\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-50 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-50. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-50 and should be submitted on
or before December 1, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28510 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8271-8273]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02903]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-30-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Middlesex Extension Project,
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public
Scoping Session

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Middlesex Extension Project
involving construction and operation of natural gas facilities by Texas
Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Middlesex County, New
Jersey. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process
to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues
to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
March 9, 2020.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on December 19, 2019, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP20-30-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under
the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing'';
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP20-30-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426; or
    (4) In lieu of sending written comments, the Commission invites you
to attend the public scoping session its staff will conduct in the
project area, scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, February 27, 2020, 6 p.m. to   Courtyard by Marriott Edison-
 9 p.m..                                  Woodbridge, 3105 Woodbridge
                                          Avenue, Edison, NJ 08837, 732-
                                          738-1991.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary goal of this scoping session is to have you identify
the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be
considered in the EA. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a
one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to
receive the maximum amount of verbal comments, in a convenient way
during the timeframe allotted.
    The scoping session is scheduled from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. You may arrive at any time after 6:00 p.m. There will not
be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If
you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the
order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 9:00 p.m. However,
if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who
wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may
conclude the session at 8:30 p.m. Please see appendix 2 for additional
information on the session format and conduct.
    Your scoping comments will be recorded by a court reporter (with
FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public
record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on
FERC's eLibrary system (see pages 6-7 of this notice for instructions
on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in
providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5
minutes may be implemented for each commentor.
    It is important to note that the Commission provides equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally at a scoping session. Although there will not be a
formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the
scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review
process.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Eastern's project consists of the construction and operation
of 1.55 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline, a new metering and
regulating station, 0.20 mile of 16-inch-diameter interconnecting
piping, and related appurtenances and ancillary facilities to provide
natural gas transportation to interconnects with Transcontinental Gas
Pipe Line Company, LLC's (Transco) Mainline system and Transco's
existing Woodbridge Lateral for ultimate delivery to the 725-Megawatt
natural gas-fueled combined-cycle Woodbridge Energy Center owned by CPV
Shore Holdings, LLC and located in Woodbridge Township, New Jersey. The
Project would be co-located with an existing utility right-of-way and
railroad corridor.
    The general location of the project facilities filed by Texas
Eastern is shown in appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the project would require about 19.3 acres of land
during construction. Permanent (operational) impacts would total about
5.8 acres associated with permanent pipeline easements and installation
of the proposed aboveground facilities. Following construction Texas
Eastern would grade, restore pre-construction contours, and revegetate
all areas temporarily disturbed by construction.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's website (https://

www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian Tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The EA for this project will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices
related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 3).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP20-30). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: February 7, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02903 Filed 2-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P