[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 47922]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19601]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9932-09-Region 2]

Proposed Settlement Pursuant Section 122(h) of CERCLA Relating to
the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site, Brooklyn, Kings County, New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed
settlement agreement pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA, entered into
by and EPA, Region 2, and Patterson Fuel Oil Co., Inc. (``Settling
Party''), pertaining to the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site (``Site'')
located in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Under the Settlement
Agreement, the Settling Party agrees to pay EPA $100,000.00 for the
recovery of response actions incurred at the Site.
    The Settlement Agreement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or
to take administrative action against the Settling Party pursuant to
Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), with
regard to the Site, as defined in the Settlement Agreement. For thirty
(30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will
receive written comments relating to the Settlement Agreement. EPA will
consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent
to the Settlement Agreement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the proposed Settlement Agreement is
inappropriate, improper or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments
received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2
offices, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The proposed Settlement Agreement can be viewed at http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/gowanus/additionaldocs.html. It is
also available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    A copy may also be obtained from Brian Carr, Assistant Regional
Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should
reference the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site, Brooklyn, New York. Index
No. CERCLA-02-2015-2008 and should be sent by mail or email to Brian
Carr, Assistant Regional Counsel, at the address or email address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Carr, Assistant Regional
Counsel, at the address, email or telephone number stated above.

    Dated: July 27, 2015.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2015-19601 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47213-47216]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19307]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0710; FRL-9999-44-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA; Nonattainment New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision provided by the
State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(GA EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, via a letter dated
July 2, 2018. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve changes to
Georgia's Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting rules. This
action is being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and
its implementing regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. at EPA-
R04-OAR-2018-0710 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The New Source Review (NSR) program is a preconstruction permitting
program that requires certain stationary sources of air pollution to
obtain permits prior to beginning construction. The NSR permitting
program applies to new construction and to modifications of existing
sources. New construction and modifications that emit ``regulated NSR
pollutants'' over certain thresholds are subject to major NSR
requirements, while smaller emitting sources and modifications may be
subject to minor NSR requirements.
    Major NSR permits for sources that are located in attainment or
unclassifiable areas are referred to as Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permits. Major NSR permits for sources located in
nonattainment areas and that emit pollutants above the specified
thresholds for which the area is in nonattainment are referred to as
NNSR permits.
    A new stationary source is subject to major NSR requirements if its
potential to emit (PTE) a regulated NSR pollutant exceeds certain
emission thresholds. If it exceeds the applicable threshold, the NSR
regulations define it as a ``major stationary source.'' An existing
major stationary source triggers major NSR permitting requirements when
it undergoes a ``major modification,'' which occurs when a source
undertakes a physical change or change in method of operation (i.e., a
``project'') that would result in (1) a significant emissions increase
from the project, and (2) a significant net emissions increase from the
source. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(52).
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)--Permit Requirements contains the State's
NNSR permitting requirements and identifies the counties subject to
those requirements.
    Effective January 6, 1992, EPA designated 13 counties surrounding
Atlanta, Georgia, as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
classified

them as a ``serious'' nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as
the Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area).\1\ See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area was
reclassified as a ``severe'' nonattainment area. See 68 FR 55469
(September 26, 2003). This classification requires, among other things,
that a ``major source'' and a ``major stationary source'' be defined to
include certain sources that emit or have the potential to emit 25 tons
or more of nitrogen oxides (NOX) or volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and that emissions offsets apply at a ratio of at least
1.3 or 1.2:1 (depending on the criteria in CAA section 182(d)(2)).\2\
EPA redesignated the Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area to attainment for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, effective June 14, 2005. See 70 FR 34660 (June 15,
2005). Effective June 15, 2005, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See
69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area consisted of the following
counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette,
Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale. The 1-hour
ozone NAAQS was set at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) with attainment
defined when the expected number of days per calendar year, with
maximum hourly average concentration greater than 0.12 ppm, is equal
to or less than one.
    \2\ For ozone, the offset ratio is the ratio of the total
emissions reductions of NOx or VOCs to the total increased emissions
of those pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective June 15, 2004, 20 counties surrounding Atlanta were
designated as nonattainment and classified as a ``marginal''
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (hereinafter
referred to as the Atlanta 1997 8-hour Ozone Area).\3\ See 69 FR 23858
(April 30, 2004). Effective April 7, 2008, the Atlanta 1997 8-hour
Ozone Area was reclassified as a ``moderate'' nonattainment area. See
73 FR 12013 (March 6, 2008). This classification requires, among other
things, that a ``major source'' and a ``major stationary source'' be
defined to include certain sources that emit or have the potential to
emit 100 tons or more of NOX or VOC and that emissions
offsets apply at a ratio of at least 1.15:1. The Atlanta 1997 8-hour
Ozone Area was redesignated to attainment, effective January 1, 2014.
See 78 FR 72040 (December 2, 2013). Effective April 6, 2015, EPA
revoked the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Atlanta 1997 8-hour Ozone Area consisted of the
following counties: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton,
Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett,
Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton. The
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was set at 0.08 ppm based on an annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration averaged
over three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective July 20, 2012, 15 counties surrounding Atlanta were
designated as nonattainment and classified as a ``marginal''
nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (hereinafter
referred to as the Atlanta 2008 8-hour Ozone Area).\4\ See 77 FR 30088
(May 21, 2012). This classification requires, among other things, that
a ``major source'' and a ``major stationary source'' be defined to
include certain sources that emit or have the potential to emit 100
tons or more of NOX or VOC and that emissions offsets apply
at a ratio of at least 1.1:1. The Atlanta 2008 8-hour Ozone Area was
redesignated to attainment, effective June 2, 2017. See 82 FR 25523
(June 2, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Atlanta 2008 8-hour Ozone Area consisted of the
following counties: Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb,
Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton,
Paulding, and Rockdale. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is set at 0.075
ppm based on an annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration averaged over three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately one year later, on June 4, 2018, EPA published a
Federal Register notice announcing that seven counties surrounding
Atlanta were designated as nonattainment and classified as a
``marginal'' nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(hereinafter referred to as the Atlanta 2015 8-hour Ozone Area).\5\ See
83 FR 25776 (effective August 3, 2018). As discussed above, the
``marginal'' classification requires that a ``major source'' and a
``major stationary source'' be defined to include certain sources that
emit or have the potential to emit 100 tons or more of NOX
or VOC and that emissions offsets apply at a ratio of at least 1.1:1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Atlanta 2015 8-hour Ozone Area consists of the following
counties: Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and
Henry. The 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is set at 0.070 ppm based on an
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration
averaged over three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the redesignations identified above and the nonattainment
designation for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the ozone nonattainment
area surrounding Atlanta now consists of seven counties--Bartow,
Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry. Via a letter dated
July 2, 2018, GA EPD provided a SIP revision to EPA to modify the NNSR
requirements in Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)--Permit Requirements as discussed
below.\6\ In this proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve the
changes to Georgia's Rule 391-3-1-.03(8) because these changes are
consistent with the CAA. EPA's analysis is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA received the submittal on July 6, 2018. Georgia's cover
letter also requested revision to Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)--Title V
Operating Permits. However, EPA is not acting on that revision
because Rule 391-3-1-.03(10) is not part of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    EPA is proposing to approve changes to NNSR permitting requirements
in Rule 391-3-1-.03(8) that remove the NNSR provision specific to the
counties that were part of the Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area and remove
references to that provision, and apply permitting requirements to
certain electric generating units (EGUs) located in counties in the
maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\7\ Specifically,
Georgia is removing Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(13)--Additional Provisions
for Ozone Non-Attainment Areas for Counties that were Formerly Part of
the 1-hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area; revising and renaming Rule 391-3-
1-.03(8)(c)(14)--Additional Provisions for Ozone Non-Attainment Areas
for Counties that were Not Formerly Part of the 1-hour Ozone Non-
Attainment Area; revising Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(15)--Additional
Provisions for Electrical Generating Units Located in Areas
Contributing to the Ambient Air Level of Ozone in the Metropolitan
Atlanta Ozone Non-Attainment Area and removing references to Rule 391-
3-1-.03(8)(c)(13) located at Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(12)(iv) and Rules
391-3-1-.03(8)(g)(2)(i), (5)(i), and (6)(i). These changes have the
effect of applying the NNSR permitting requirements of Rule 391-3-
1-.03(8)(c)(14) to the counties located in the Atlanta 2015 8-hour
Ozone Area and to the counties located in the maintenance area for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An area redesignated to attainment is referred to as a
maintenance area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(13) applies ``severe'' ozone nonattainment
area NNSR requirements to the counties formerly included in the Atlanta
1-hour Ozone Area. Among other things, Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(13)
defines ``major source'' and ``major stationary source'' to include
certain sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 25
tons per year of VOC or NOX; identifies the net emissions
increase triggering the permitting requirement as a result of a
physical or operational change at a major stationary source; and sets
an emissions offset ratio of at least 1.3:1.
    As mentioned above, EPA redesignated the Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area
to attainment on June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34660) and revoked the 1-hour
standard on August 4, 2005 (70 FR 44470). EPA has also redesignated the
Atlanta 1997 8-hour Ozone Area and Atlanta 2008 8-hour Ozone Area to
attainment and revoked the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard. EPA is proposing to approve the removal of Rule 391-3-
1-.03(8)(c)(13), thereby eliminating ``severe'' ozone nonattainment
area NNSR requirements for the counties formerly included in the
Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area.
    Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(14), among other things, defines ``major
source'' and ``major stationary source'' to include certain sources
that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100 tons per year of
VOC or NOX; identifies the net emissions increase triggering
the permitting requirement as a result of a physical or operational
change at a major stationary source; and sets an emissions offset ratio
of at least 1.15:1 (i.e., the rule applies ``moderate'' ozone
nonattainment area NNSR requirements to the counties listed therein).
The revised rule adds the 13 counties from Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(13),
(i.e., the counties that comprised the Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area) and
removes five counties (Barrow, Carroll, Hall, Spalding, and Walton) so
that Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(14) applies to all of the counties in the
2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area and the Atlanta 2015 8-hour Ozone
Area.\8\ The revision also changes the title of the rule to
``Additional Provisions for Ozone Non-Attainment Areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The revised rule applies to the following counties: Bartow,
Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Additional Provisions for Electrical Generating Units Located
in Areas Contributing to the Ambient Air Level of Ozone in the
Metropolitan Atlanta Ozone Non-Attainment Area'' at Rule 391-3-
1-.03(8)(c)(15), among other things, define ``major source'' and
``major stationary source'' to include certain sources that emit or
have the potential to emit at least 100 tons per year of VOC or
NOX; identify the net emissions increase threshold
triggering the permitting requirement as a result of a physical or
operational change at a major stationary source; require Best Available
Control Technology for the units subject to the permitting requirement;
and set an emissions offset ratio of at least 1.1:1. The revision adds
the five counties (Barrow, Carroll, Hall, Spalding, and Walton) removed
from Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(14).\9\ None of the counties listed in Rule
391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(15) are part of the Atlanta 2015 8-hour Ozone Area or
the maintenance area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The revised rule applies to the following counties: Banks,
Barrow, Butts, Carroll, Chattooga, Clarke, Dawson, Floyd, Gordon,
Hall, Haralson, Heard, Jackson, Jasper, Jones, Lamar, Lumpkin,
Madison, Meriwether, Monroe, Morgan, Oconee, Pickens, Pike, Polk,
Putnam, Spalding, Troup, Upson, and Walton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the submission requests removal of references to Rule 391-
3-1-.03(8)(c)(13) at Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(12)(iv) and Rules 391-3-
1-.03(8)(g)(2)(i), (5)(i), and (6)(i).
    EPA is proposing to approve the changes described in Georgia's July
2, 2018, SIP revision because it is no longer necessary for the State
to retain either the NNSR provisions developed to address the former
severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the NNSR
program for the five counties removed from Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(14)
that are part of the maintenance area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and are
designated as attainment for all ozone NAAQS. These changes are
acceptable under the ozone implementation rules for the 1997 and 2008
ozone NAAQS because the anti-backsliding provisions contained therein
do not apply.\10\ The changes are also acceptable under CAA section
110(l), which prevents EPA from approving a SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement,
for the following reasons.\11\ First, NSR only applies to new sources
and to existing sources that undergo a physical change or change in the
method of operation (i.e., it is a prospective permitting program).
Therefore, the conditions in the NNSR permits issued in the counties
within the former Atlanta ozone nonattainment areas, along with any
associated emissions offsets, will remain in effect. Second, EPA's NSR
permitting rules and Georgia's SIP-approved regulations implementing
those requirements prohibit the State from issuing permits to new or
modified stationary sources if such construction or modification would
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.160
requires each state's SIP to contain enforceable procedures that
prevent the permitting of new sources or modifications that would
interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS, and Georgia's
SIP contains such a provision at Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(a).\12\ These two
rules are applicable to all NSR programs--minor NSR, PSD, and NNSR.
Third, new major sources and major modifications covered under the NNSR
program in Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(14) that are located in counties
formerly within the Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area must still obtain
emissions offsets at an emissions reduction to emissions increase ratio
greater than one, thereby ensuring that any future new sources and
major modifications will result in a net decrease in ozone precursor
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 40 CFR 51.905 and 51.1105, respectively. As discussed
above, EPA redesignated the Atlanta 1-hour Ozone Area to attainment
and subsequently revoked the 1-hour standard; redesignated the
Atlanta 1997 8-hour Ozone Area to attainment and subsequently
revoked the 1997 8-hour standard; and redesignated the Atlanta 2008
8-hour Ozone Area to attainment.
    \11\ EPA also evaluated the applicability of CAA section 193 to
the proposed changes. Section 193 is a general savings clause
stating that no control requirement in effect before November 15,
1990, in any nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be
modified after November 15, 1990 in any manner unless the
modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of
such air pollutant. Section 193 is not applicable to this proposed
action because Georgia first adopted the rules at issue after
November 15, 1990.
    \12\ The SIP-approved version of Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(a) states
that ``Each application for a permit to construct a new stationary
source or modify an existing stationary source shall be subjected to
a preconstruction or premodification review by the Director [of the
Division of Environmental Protection or his designee]. The Director
shall determine prior to issuing any permit that the proposed
construction or modification will not cause or contribute to a
failure to attain (as expeditiously as practicable) or maintain any
ambient air quality standard, a significant deterioration of air
quality, or a violation of any applicable emission limitation or
standard of performance or other requirement under the [Georgia Air
Quality] Act or this Chapter (391-3-1). Each person applying to the
Director for a permit to construct a new stationary source or modify
an existing stationary source shall provide information required by
the Director to make such determination.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)--Permit Requirements, which
revises the State's permit rules, state effective June 18, 2018. EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to the
Georgia SIP, submitted in a letter dated July 2, 2018, because they are
consistent with the CAA and federal regulations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.

See 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. This action merely proposes to approve
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds, Nitrogen Oxides.

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

    Dated: August 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-19307 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 42821]
[DOCID:fr23jy08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1777-DR]

Michigan; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Michigan (FEMA-1777-DR), dated July 14, 2008,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 14, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Michigan resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
during the period of June 6-13, 2008, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121-5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Michigan.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible
for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If
Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is
later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program
also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, W. Michael Moore, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Michigan have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Allegan, Barry, Eaton, Ingham, Lake, Manistee, Mason, Missaukee,
Osceola, Ottawa, and Wexford Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Michigan are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-16802 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2827-2829]
[DOCID:fr18ja11-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2011-0003]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting Requirements for Barges
Loaded With Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Illinois Waterway System Located
Within the Ninth Coast Guard District; Stay (Suspension)

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District is temporarily
staying (suspending) reporting requirements under the Regulated
Navigation Area (RNA) established by 33 CFR 165.921 for barges loaded
with certain dangerous cargoes (CDC barges) in that portion of the
Illinois Waterway System located in the Ninth Coast Guard District.
During this suspension, the Coast Guard will analyze future reporting
needs and evaluate possible changes in CDC reporting requirements. A
final rule will either lift the suspension and restore the obligation
of the affected public to comply with the existing reporting
requirements, modify those requirements, or repeal the RNA. This
suspension of the CDC reporting requirements in no way relieves towing
vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges
in the RNA from their dangerous cargo or vessel arrival and movement
reporting obligations currently in effect under other regulations or
placed into effect under appropriate Coast Guard authority.

DATES: Effective midnight January 15, 2011, 33 CFR 165.921(d)-(h) are
stayed until midnight January 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0003 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0003 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
temporary rule, call or e-mail LCDR Ted Fowles, Coast Guard; telephone
216-902-6010, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The contract for the
current CDC barge reporting system at the Inland River Vessel Movement
Center (IRVMC) was extended to January 2011. In late December 2010 it
was determined that the IRVMC reporting requirements would be suspended
for a two-year period beginning at midnight January 15, 2011. As of
January 16, 2011, the Coast Guard will have no way to receive and
process reports. The short time span between late December and January
15 makes it impracticable to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) about suspension of the reporting requirements of 33 CFR 165.921
or to take public comments on the same. We believe prior notice and
comment is unnecessary because we expect the affected public will have
no objection to the temporary suspension of regulatory requirements.
Prior notice and comment is also contrary to the public interest
because there is no public purpose served by continuing to require
reports when there is no mechanism for receiving or processing those
reports.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a substantive rule that relieves a
restriction may be made effective less than 30 days after publication.
This temporary final rule, suspending the reporting requirements and
thereby relieving the regulatory restriction on towing vessel operators
and fleeting area managers provided by 33 CFR 165.921, takes effect at
midnight on January 15, 2011, less than 30 days after publication.

Background and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rulemaking is the Coast Guard's authority
to establish regulated navigation areas, under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46
U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. An RNA is a
water area within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels
navigating within the area have been established, to control vessel
traffic in a place determined to have hazardous conditions. 33 CFR
165.10; Commandant Instruction Manual M16704.3A, 1-6.
    The purpose of this temporary final rule is to suspend the
reporting requirements for CDC barges imposed by the RNA created in 33
CFR 165.921. This temporary rule relieves the towing vessel operators
and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges from the
reporting requirements for a two-year period.

Discussion of Rule

    During the suspension of reporting requirements, towing vessel
operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges will be
relieved of their obligation to report their CDCs under 33 CFR
165.921(d)-(h). This suspension in no way relieves towing vessel
operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges from
their dangerous cargo or vessel arrival and movement reporting
obligations currently in effect under other regulations or placed into
effect under appropriate Coast Guard authority.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this temporary final rule after considering numerous
statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This rule is temporary and limited in
nature by suspending CDC barge reporting requirements during a two-year
period, creating no undue delay to vessel traffic in the regulated
area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some which may
be small entities: owners or operators of CDC barges intending to
transit that portion of the Illinois Waterway System located in the
Ninth Coast Guard District during this two-year period. This rule will
not have a significant economic impact on those entities or a
substantial number of any small entities for the following reason. This
rule suspends reporting requirements for two years.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves a two-year suspension
of the reporting requirements in an RNA for CDC barges.
    This temporary rule suspends the reporting requirements established
for CDC barges transiting that portion of the Illinois Waterway System
located in the Ninth Coast Guard District. Under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend 33 CFR 165.921 by staying paragraphs (d)-(h) from midnight
January 15, 2011 to midnight January 15, 2013.

    Dated: January 7, 2011.
Michael N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-852 Filed 1-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14025-14030]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05953]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704; FRL-9943-76-Region 5]

Indiana; Ohio; Wisconsin; Disapproval of Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from
Indiana and Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of section
110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), and to partially approve and partially
disapprove elements of the SIP submission from Wisconsin addressing the
same requirements. The infrastructure requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities
under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure
requirements concerning interstate transport provisions. Ohio, Indiana,
and Wisconsin made SIP submissions that, among other things, certified
that their existing SIPs were sufficient to meet the interstate
transport infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA
is proposing to disapprove portions of submissions from Indiana and
Ohio, and to partially approve and partially disapprove a portion of
Wisconsin's submission addressing these requirements.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
April 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0969 (Indiana and Ohio) and EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704 (Wisconsin)
at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is

restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. EPA's Review
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    This rulemaking addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements
in three infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the applicable
infrastructure requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS: a
December 12, 2011, submission from the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM), clarified in a May 24, 2012, letter; a
December 27, 2012, submission from the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (Ohio EPA); and a June 20, 2013, submission from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), clarified in a January 28,
2015, letter.
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. EPA
commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.''
    This rulemaking proposes action on three CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of these submissions. In particular,
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS (``prong
one''), or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (``prong two''),
by any another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that
infrastructure SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures
required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality
(``prong three'') and to protect visibility (``prong four'') in another
state. This rulemaking addresses prongs one, two, and four of this CAA
section. The majority of the other infrastructure elements were
approved in rulemakings on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713) for Indiana;
October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62019) for Ohio; and September 11, 2015 (80 FR
54725) for Wisconsin.

II. EPA's Review

    On September 13, 2013, EPA issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance). This guidance provides,
among other things, recommendations on the development of
infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ As noted in the 2013
Guidance, pursuant to CAA section 110(a), states must provide
reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all
infrastructure SIP submissions. IDEM, Ohio EPA, and WDNR provided
public comment opportunities on their SIP submissions. In this action
of proposed rulemaking, EPA is also soliciting comment on our
evaluation of each state's infrastructure SIP submission. The states
summarized how various components of their SIPs met each of the
applicable requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
as applicable. The following review evaluates only the state's
submissions for three CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2013 Guidance does not make recommendations with respect
to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements--i.e., prongs one and two. EPA
issued the Guidance shortly after the D.C. Circuit decision in EME
Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which had interpreted the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the
uncertainty created by that ongoing litigation, EPA elected at the
time to not provide additional guidance on those requirements. As
guidance is neither binding, nor required by statute, whether EPA's
elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on
a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Prongs One and Two

    IDEM's submission addressing the prong one and two requirements
states that it is currently ``in the process of promulgating rules'' to
implement EPA's 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). IDEM
noted, however, that at the time of its submission CSAPR was being
implemented pursuant to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). IDEM did
not cite any additional rules or regulations controlling emissions from
the state or otherwise provide any additional analysis regarding the
impacts of emissions from sources in Indiana on air quality in other
states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA's submission cited various state rules related generally
to interstate transport of pollutants including rules concerning stack
height requirements, acid rain permits and compliance, the nitrogen
oxide budget trading program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and
the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Ohio EPA also noted EPA's development of
CAIR and regional haze programs that help address interstate transport.
Finally, Ohio EPA noted that it has ``responded to requests'' from
Indiana and West Virginia to ameliorate interstate transport by
revising state rules applicable to Hamilton and Jefferson Counties.
Ohio EPA did not provide any additional analysis regarding the impacts
of emissions from sources in Ohio on air quality in other states with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, particularly as to whether the state
rules identified in its submission are sufficient to prohibit emissions
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the standard in other states.
    WDNR's submission states that the Wisconsin SIP implements the
state portions of CAIR as a means of addressing the interstate
transport of ozone precursors, and that current state and regional
controls are sufficient to meet the state's transport obligations. WDNR
also noted that it has ``the authority to develop'' additional control
requirements once the EPA complies with the DC Circuit's opinion in EME

Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012), instructing EPA to
quantify each state's significant contribution to air quality problems
in other states before requiring states to submit SIPs addressing such
pollution. Subsequent to WDNR's submission, however, the U.S. Supreme
Court reversed the DC Circuit. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). WDNR has not supplemented its initial
submission and did not provide any additional analysis regarding the
impacts of emissions from sources in Wisconsin on air quality in other
states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Although many of the programs and rules cited by Ohio EPA, IDEM,
and WDNR reduce precursor emissions that contribute to ozone formation
and interstate transport, they were not developed to address interstate
transport for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. None of the states
have demonstrated how these programs and rules provide sufficient
controls on emissions to address interstate transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. IDEM in particular does not cite any rules currently being
implemented by the state that are part of Indiana's approved SIP or
that are being submitted as part of the present SIP submission to
address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, instead Indiana
refers only to rules that it anticipates may be implemented by the
state in the future.
    Ohio EPA and WDNR's submissions both rely on the states'
implementation of CAIR, which was designed to address the 1997 Ozone
NAAQS, but not the more stringent 2008 ozone standard being evaluated
in this action. Regardless, neither the states nor EPA are currently
implementing the ozone-season NOX trading program
promulgated in CAIR, as it has been replaced by CSAPR.
    In turn, CSAPR addresses interstate transport requirements for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the three submissions addressed by this
action concern states' interstate transport obligations for a different
and more stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not
sufficient to merely cite as evidence of compliance that these older
programs have been implemented by the states or EPA.\2\ These
submissions all lack any technical analysis evaluating or demonstrating
whether emissions in each state impact air quality in other states with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, the submissions themselves do
not provide EPA with a basis to agree with the conclusions that the
states already have adequate provisions in their SIPs to address CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This is particularly true where, as here, the states have
failed to include any analysis of the downwind impacts of emissions
originating within their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v.
EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although these submissions contain no data or analysis to support
their conclusions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has
recently shared technical information with states to facilitate their
efforts to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA developed this technical information following the same
approach used to evaluate interstate contribution in CSAPR in order to
support the recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015) (``CSAPR Update
Rule'').
    In CSAPR, EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine
whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality
problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution
did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state
was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly
contribute or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's
emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of one
percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one
percent was appropriate. EPA evaluated the comments received and
ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small,
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a
higher or lower threshold than one percent, EPA compiled the
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. EPA's
analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states,
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, EPA determined that
it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold
because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone
even at low levels. EPA also determined that a lower threshold such as
0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall
percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport
captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. EPA
determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission
reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have
a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator that emission
controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality
impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a
threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.''
    In the final CSAPR, EPA determined that one percent was a
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and EPA's
previous use of a one percent threshold in CAIR. EPA used a single
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The projected
contribution from each state was averaged over multiple days with
projected high modeled ozone, and then compared to the one percent
threshold. We concluded that this approach for setting and applying the
air quality threshold for ozone was appropriate because it provided a
robust metric, was consistent with the approach for fine particulate
matter used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be
applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm. EPA has
subsequently proposed to use the same threshold for purposes of
evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard
in the CSAPR Update Rule.
    On August 4, 2015, EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR approach to
contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The modeling data released in this

NODA was also used to support the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The
moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 20,
2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by this attainment deadline,
states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, EPA
proposed that 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for the
purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA
used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations
at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state
ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11)
to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used nationwide
state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source
Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis
technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the
2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for
a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this
SIP action. The modeling data released in the NODA on August 4, 2015,
and the CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date information EPA has
developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind
air quality problems. As discussed in the CSAPR Update proposal for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, the air quality modeling: (1) Identified locations in
the U.S. where EPA expects nonattainment or maintenance problems in
2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance
receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions of emissions
from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at those receptors
in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30, December 3, 2015). Consistent with
CSAPR, EPA proposed to use a threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion) to identify linkages between upwind
states and downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. EPA
proposed that eastern states with contributions to a specific receptor
that meet or exceed this screening threshold are considered ``linked''
to that receptor, and were analyzed further to quantify available
emissions reductions necessary to address interstate transport to these
receptors.
    The results of EPA's air quality modeling with respect to Ohio,
Indiana, and Wisconsin are summarized in Table 1 below. That modeling
indicates that emissions from Ohio and Indiana are linked to both
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in downwind states, and that
Wisconsin is linked only to downwind maintenance receptors.

          Table 1--CSAPR Update Proposal Contributions to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Downwind
                         Largest contribution    Largest contribution     nonattainment     Downwind maintenance
         State             to nonattainment         to maintenance      receptors located   receptors located in
                                                                            in states              states
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana...............  6.24 ppb..............  14.95 ppb.............  Connecticut and    Kentucky, Maryland,
                                                                         Wisconsin.         Michigan, New
                                                                                Jersey, New York,
                                                                                Ohio and
                                                                                Pennsylvania.
Ohio..................  2.18 ppb..............  7.92 ppb..............  Connecticut and    Connecticut,
                                                                         Wisconsin.         Kentucky, Maryland,
                                                                                Michigan, New
                                                                                Jersey, New York,
                                                                                and Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin.............  0.34 ppb..............  2.59 ppb..............  .................  Michigan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to EPA
contradicts Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin's conclusion that each state's
SIP contains adequate provisions to address interstate transport as to
the 2008 ozone standard.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the Indiana and Ohio SIPs for both
the prong one and prong two requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained above, the IDEM and Ohio EPA SIP
submissions do not provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, EPA's
most recent modeling indicates that emissions from those states are
projected to significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in other states.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the Wisconsin SIP for the prong two
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. As explained above, the WDNR SIP submission does not
provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the state's
SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the 2008
ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, EPA's most recent modeling
indicates that emissions from Wisconsin are projected to contribute to
projected downwind maintenance receptors in another state.
    However, EPA is proposing to approve the Wisconsin SIP for the
prong one requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Although WDNR did not provide information or
analyses explaining why existing SIP provisions are adequate to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment in downwind states, EPA's
independent modeling presented in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule
indicates that Wisconsin emissions are not linked to any projected
downwind nonattainment receptors. Accordingly, EPA proposes to find
that the Wisconsin SIP has adequate provisions to prevent such
significant contribution to nonattainment as to the 2008 ozone
standard, and to accordingly approve the SIP for the prong one
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS.

B. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Prong Four Only

    No action is being taken today on prong three relating to PSD. This
prong was approved for Indiana on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713) and for
Ohio on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10591), and will be acted on for
Wisconsin in a future rulemaking.
    The 2013 Guidance states that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)'s prong
four requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA
has

found to adequately address any contribution of a state's sources to
impacts on visibility programs in other states. The Guidance lays out
two ways in which a state's infrastructure SIP may comply with prong
four. The first way is through an air agency's confirmation in its
infrastructure SIP submission that it has an EPA-approved regional haze
SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. These
sections specifically require that a state participating in a regional
planning process include all measures needed to achieve its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through
that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not
interfering with measures in other air agencies' plans to protect
visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
SIP, a state may meet its prong four requirements through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP that emissions within its
jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect
visibility. Such a submission would need to include measures to limit
visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform
with any mutually agreed regional haze reasonable progress goals for
mandatory Class I areas in other states.
What is EPA's assessment of the states' prong four submissions?
    For prong four, relating to protection of visibility in another
state, in this rulemaking EPA is proposing to disapprove the relevant
portion of the SIPs for Ohio and Indiana. On September 11, 2015 (80 FR
54725), EPA approved Wisconsin's visibility requirements for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in this rulemaking, no action is necessary
regarding Wisconsin's prong four requirements.
    IDEM's submission acknowledges that Indiana is subject to the
regional haze program, which addresses visibility-impairing pollutants.
EPA finalized a limited approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP
submission for, among other things, BART for non-electric generating
units (EGUs) and PM from EGUs on June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34218).
    Ohio EPA's submission also mentions the regional haze program for
addressing visibility, as well as the air agency's work with Federal
Land Managers to address proposed major new sources in the state. EPA
finalized a limited approval of Ohio's regional haze SIP submission
for, among other things, non-EGUs on July 2, 2012 (77 FR 39177).
    However, Indiana and Ohio's regional haze plans both rely on CAIR
for addressing visibility for EGUs. EPA had originally found that CAIR
was an acceptable solution for meeting the requirement of the regional
haze program for EGUs.\3\ However, the D.C Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA
with instructions to replace that rulemaking with a new rulemaking
consistent with the Court's opinion.\4\ Subsequently EPA issued a
rulemaking stating that CAIR's replacement, CSAPR, could be used to
satisfy the EGU portion of the regional haze plans. June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642). In that same rulemaking, EPA issued limited disapprovals of
Indiana and Ohio's regional haze SIP submissions, among other states,
and issued FIPs that allowed CSAPR to meet the regional haze
requirements for EGUs in applicable states (77 FR 33642).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air
Interstate Rule: Demonstration that CAIR Satisfies the ``Better-
than-BART'' Test As proposed in the Guidelines for Making BART
Determinations.'' March 2005.
    \4\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896; modified by 550
F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although both Indiana and Ohio have approved regional haze plans
for their non-EGUs, they do not have fully approved regional haze SIPs
in place because both States' EGU-related obligations are satisfied by
EPA's CSAPR-based FIPs. Furthermore, neither Indiana nor Ohio has
provided a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission showing
that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air
agencies' plans to protect visibility. Because the States have failed
to meet either option for satisfying their prong four obligations laid
out in the 2013 Guidance, EPA is proposing to disapprove prong four for
the infrastructure element under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
2008 ozone standard.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of submissions from
Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin certifying that each of their current SIPs
are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure element under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, specifically prongs
one, two, and four for Indiana and Ohio, and prong two for Wisconsin.
In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the prong one portion of
Wisconsin's SIP submission with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rulemaking does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency
may certify that a rulemaking will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves
regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action
merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposed rule.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children
because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 7, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-05953 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31625-31626]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13449]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75063; File No. SR-SCCP-2015-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Stock Clearing Corporation of
Philadelphia; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of The
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.

May 28, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 19, 2015, Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia (``SCCP'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by SCCP. 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

    SCCP is filing this proposed rule change with respect to amendments
of the Amended and Restated Certificate of

Incorporation (the ``Charter'') and By-Laws (the ``By-Laws'') of its
parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX'' or the
``Company''), to change the name of the Company to Nasdaq, Inc. The
proposed amendments will be implemented on a date designated by NASDAQ
OMX following approval by the Commission. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on SCCP's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/sccp/, at the principal
office of SCCP, 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, SCCP 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. SCCP 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
    As part of an ongoing global rebranding initiative, the Company has
begun to refer to itself, both internally and externally, as Nasdaq,
rather than NASDAQ OMX. For purposes of consistency with its marketing,
communications and other materials, the Company has decided to change
the legal names of NASDAQ OMX and certain of its subsidiaries to
eliminate references to OMX. The Company therefore proposes to amend
its Charter and By-Laws to change its legal name from The NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc. to Nasdaq, Inc.
    Specifically, the Company proposes to file a Certificate of
Amendment to its Charter with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware to amend Article First of the Charter to reflect the new name.
In addition, the Company proposes to amend the title and Article I(f)
of the By-Laws to reflect the new name.
2. Statutory Basis
    SCCP believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\3\ in that it assures a fair representation of
shareholders and participants in the selection of directors and
administration of its affairs. While the proposals relate to the
organizational documents of NASDAQ OMX, rather than SCCP, SCCP is
indirectly owned by NASDAQ OMX, and therefore, NASDAQ OMX's
stockholders have an indirect stake in SCCP. In addition, the
participants in SCCP, to the extent any exist, could purchase stock in
NASDAQ OMX in the open market, just like any other stockholder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, NASDAQ OMX is proposing changes to its Charter and
By-Laws to change NASDAQ OMX's legal name to Nasdaq, Inc. SCCP believes
that the changes will eliminate confusion that may exist because of
NASDAQ OMX's ongoing global rebranding as Nasdaq. As a result, SCCP
believes that the proposals assure a fair representation of NASDAQ
OMX's stockholders in the selection of directors and administration of
NASDAQ OMX's affairs, as well as the affairs of SCCP.

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

    Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of
NASDAQ OMX and not to the operations of SCCP, SCCP 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.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which SCCP consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-SCCP-2015-01 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-SCCP-2015-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of SCCP. 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-SCCP-2015-01 and should be
submitted on or before June 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13449 Filed 6-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P