[Federal Register: January 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1872]
[DOCID:fr10ja08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket Nos. ER08-274-000, ER08-274-001]

Citadel Energy Strategies, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 3, 2008.
    Citadel Energy Strategies, LLC (Citadel) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The
proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy,
capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Citadel also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Citadel requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18
CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by Citadel.
    On December 27, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the
requests for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The
Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time
for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be
heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability by Citadel, should file a protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2007).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
January 28, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Citadel is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Citadel, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Citadel's issuance of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-227 Filed 1-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43584-43585]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13011-003]

Shelbyville Hydro LLC; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major License.
    b. Project No.: 13011-003.
    c. Date filed: October 28, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Shelbyville Hydro LLC (Shelbyville Hydro), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Symbiotics LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Lake Shelbyville Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Kaskaskia River, in Shelby County, Illinois at
an existing dam owned and operated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers
(Corps). The project would occupy 3.24 acres of federal lands managed
by the Corps.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, Chief Operating Officer,
Symbiotics LLC 371 Upper Terrace, Suite 2, Bend, OR 97702; Telephone
(541)-330-8779.
    i. FERC Contact: Lesley Kordella,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, terms and conditions,
recommendations, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of
this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of
this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The project would be located at an existing
dam owned and operated by the Corps (St. Louis District). The existing
Lake Shelbyville Dam was constructed in 1963 for the purposes of flood
control, recreation development, water supply, navigation release, and
fish and wildlife conservation. In August of 1970, the Corps closed the
gates to start the initial filling of the lake. The West Okaw and
Kaskaskia rivers were inundated for 17 miles upstream of the dam.
    The Lake Shelbyville Dam is an earthen embankment with an elevation
of 643 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The dam is 3,025 feet long and
rises 108 feet above the river bed. The concrete spillway is located at
593 feet MSL and is topped by three Tainter gates that are
approximately 45 feet wide by 37 feet high. The two regulating outlet
structures release water through the face of the spillway. The
impoundment above the Lake Shelbyville Dam, referred to as Lake
Shelbyville, varies according to flood control operations controlled by
the Corps. Lake Shelbyville has a maximum storage capacity of 684,000
acre-feet. Of the 684,000 acre-feet of storage, 474,000 acre-feet have
been designated for flood control. The average depth of the reservoir
is 16 feet and the maximum is 67 feet.
    The proposed Lake Shelbyville Project would consist of: (1) A trash
rack with 4-inch spacing integrated into the Corps' existing west
intake structure; (2) a steel liner installed in the Corps' existing
west outlet chamber transitioning to a bifurcation; (3) a 13-foot-
diameter bifurcation and a river release valve installed at the west
outlet structure; (4) a 13-foot-diameter penstock at the bifurcation
after which it reduces to a 12-foot-diameter, 575-foot-long steel
penstock; (5) a 60-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 68-foot-high concrete
powerhouse containing a 6.8-megawatt Kaplan turbine-generator with a
flow of 130 to 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) at a net head of 33 to
77 feet; (6) an approximately 24.5-foot-wide, 30-foot-long, 6.7-foot-
tall draft tube; (7) a 25 to 105-foot-wide, 49-foot-long tailrace; (8)
a 12.47-kilovolt, 407-foot-long buried transmission line connecting the
project to an existing Shelby Electric Cooperative substation located
900 feet downstream of the dam; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The
project boundary would include 3.24 acres of federal lands owned by the
Corps. The annual average energy production is estimated to be 20.3
gigawatt-hours.
    The project would operate in a run-of-release mode utilizing
releases from Lake Shelbyville as they are dictated by the Corps, with
no proposed change to the Corps' facility operation. Power generation
would be seasonally variable as flow regimens and pool levels are set
forth by the Corps. The project would generate power using flows
between 130 and 1,500 cfs. When flows are below 130 cfs, all flows
would be passed through the Corps' existing outlet

structure and the project would then be offline. When flows are greater
than 1,500 cfs, excess flow would be passed through the existing outlet
structure.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
application, which has already been given, established the due date for
filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the
Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be
filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the
initial development application. No competing applications or notices
of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: July 18, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18103 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Valent U.S.A. Corporation		V-37696

Page 6 of 117

FILE NAME:  Valent.doc ( January 20, 2011)

EPA Registration Division contact: Venus Eagle<PHONE_NUMBER>)

[Insert Petition Number] amend 40 CFR

Summary of Petition

EPA has received a pesticide petition (Insert Petition Number) from
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Valent U.S.A. Corporation, P.O. Box 8025 Walnut
Creek, CA 94596 (as Agent for Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd), proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.586

(a)  , by establishing a  tolerance for residues of the insecticide
chemical clothianidin,
(E)-1-(2-chloro-1,3-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-3-methyl-2-nitroguanidine, in or
on the following agricultural commodities:

Commodity	Proposed Tolerance

Parts per million

(For parent only unless indicated otherwise)

Rice Grain	0.01

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
 Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of clothianidin is adequately
understood for the purpose of granting the proposed tolerances.

2.  Analytical method.  Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid
chromatography/mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy, LC/MS/MS analysis)
is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

3. Magnitude of residues.  A rational along with  residue data have been
submitted which adequately support the requested tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile

A complete, valid and reliable database of mammalian and genetic
toxicology studies has been submitted to EPA that supports the proposed
tolerances for clothianidin. The nature of the toxic effects caused by
clothianidin, as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)
and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies reviewed, are discussed in the Federal Register of May 30, 2003
(68 FR 32390) (FRL-7306-8)
[http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2003/May/Day-30/p13564.htm and in the HED
memorandum dated 8/13/2009 from Dr. Michael Doherty to Kable Davis/Venus
Eagle “Clothianidin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on
Berries (Group 13-07H), Brassica Vegetables (Group 5), Cotton, Cucurbit
Vegetables

Valent U.S.A. Corporation		V-37696

Page 7 of 117

(Group 9), Fig, Fruiting Vegetables (Group 8), Leafy Green Vegetables
(Group 4A), Peach, Pomegranate, Soybean, Tree Nuts (Group 14), and
Tuberous and Corm Vegetables (Group 1C). PC Code: 044309” (DP
Barcodes: D355373, D362354).

 C. Aggregate Exposure and Risk Assessment

 i. Dietary Exposure.  Dietary exposure (food and water) assessments
were conducted by EPA to evaluate the potential risk due to acute and
chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various subgroups to
combined residues of clothianidin and its metabolite TMG plus residues
of clothianidin resulting from the use of thiamethoxam.  Residues from
use of clothianidin on rice grain were not included in the current
assessment because the contribution to the overall aggregate exposure is
considered negligible since the Experiment Use Permit is restricted to
40,000 acres (1.3 % of the US planting acres), and clothianidin residues
are not detectable (<LOD of 5 ppb). Crop residues for rice grain will be
included in the aggregate exposure assessment upon the establishment of
permanent tolerances to support both foliar and seed treatment
applications. Details of the model parameters can be found in the HED
risk assessment memorandum mentioned above (M. Doherty, D355373,
D362354, 08/13/2009).

ii. Non-Dietary Exposure – residential/recreational turf.  Non-dietary
exposure to clothianidin from residential or recreational (turf grass)
application scenarios was assessed using conservative residential adult
applicator and post-application assumptions.

iii. Aggregate Assessment of Risks.  The aggregate acute risk assessment
includes food, water and residential exposures.  Because chronic
exposure scenarios are not expected from residential uses of
clothianidin, the chronic exposure risk assessment only includes food
and water exposures.  Residues from use of clothianidin on limited rice
acres were not included in the current assessment because the
contribution to the overall aggregate exposure is considered negligible.
 Crop residues for rice grain will be included in the aggregate exposure
assessment upon the establishment of permanent tolerance to support
foliar and seed treatment applications.

For acute risk assessment scenarios, the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD) of 0.25 mg/kg was used to assess risks from acute dietary
exposure to the general population and to various sub-populations.  The
aPAD is based on the NOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day from an acute neurotoxicity
study (general population) or a developmental toxicity study (females
13-49 years of age) with an FQPA safety factor of 1.

For chronic risk assessment scenarios, the chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD) used for the U.S. population and all subpopulations is 0.098
mg/kg/day based on a 2-generation reproduction study NOAEL of 9.8
mg/kg/day and an FQPA safety factor of 1.

Based on these risk assessments, the margins of exposure (MOE) for all
routes of exposure and all population subgroups exceed 100 and therefore
do not exceed EPA’s level of concern.

Valent U.S.A. Corporation		V-37696

Page 8 of 117

D. Cumulative Effects.  Section 408(b) (2) (D) (v) requires that the
Agency must consider available information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity. Clothianidin is a member of the
neonicotinoid class of pesticides and is a metabolite of thiamethoxam.
Structural similarities or common effects do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity and there is currently no evidence that
neonicotinoids share a common mechanism of toxicity.  For purposes of
this petition, clothianidin residues from use of clothianidin and
thiamethoxam have been considered.

E. Safety Determination.  The toxicological database for clothianidin is
complete.  The available data indicate that there are no consistent
specific target organs in mammals.  Based on the completeness of the
database and the observed effects, the FQPA Safety Factor has been
reduced to 1X, leaving a 100X safety factor to account for
within-species (10X) and across-species (10X) variability.  Clothianidin
has been classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

The results of the aggregate exposure risk assessment indicate the
MOE’s do not exceed EPA’s level of concern.  There is therefore a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population
or to any population subgroup resulting from aggregate exposure to
residues of clothianidin.

F. International Tolerances   Canadian maximum residue limits (MRL) have
been established for residues of clothianidin at 0.01 milligram/kilogram
(mg/kg) in milk, corn, canola, stone fruits, grape, potato and pome
fruits. Clothianidin is being evaluated by the JMPR and there are no
Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) established.

Valent U.S.A. Corporation		V-37696

Page 9 of 117

Commodity	Parts per million

Almond, hulls	1.5

Beet, sugar, dried pulp	0.03

Beet, sugar, molasses	0.05

Beet, sugar, roots	0.02

Berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07H, except strawberry	0.01

Canola, seed	0.01

Cotton, gin byproducts	4.5

Cotton, undelinted seed	0.20

Fig	0.05

Fruit, pome	1.0

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except rice, forage
0.35

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except rice, hay	0.07

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except rice, stover
0.1

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except rice, straw
0.05

Grain, cereal, group 15, except rice	0.01

Grape	0.60

Milk	0.01

Nut, tree, group 14	0.01

Peach	0.80

Pomegranate	0.20

Potato, chips	0.6

Potato, granules/flakes	1.5

Soybean, seed	0.02

Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5	1.9

Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07	0.45

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9	0.06

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8	0.20

Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4	3.0

Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B	0.8

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C	0.3


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21615-21620]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08299]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77535; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
Amending Section 4.01(a) of the NYSE Arca's Bylaws and NYSE Arca Rule
3.3 To Establish a Committee for Review as a Sub-Committee of the ROC
and Making Conforming Changes to NYSE Arca Rules

April 6, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given that, on March 24, 2016, NYSE
Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. On April 4,
2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 amends and replaces the original filing in
its entirety. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange, among other things,
deleted language in the description of the proposed rule change that
was not relevant to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to (1) amending Section 4.01(a) of the NYSE
Arca's Bylaws and NYSE Arca Rule 3.3 to establish a Committee for
Review as a sub-committee of the Regulatory Oversight Committee
(``ROC''), deleting NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(3) governing the OTP Advisory
Committee and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(3) governing the Member
Advisory Committee, both of whose functions will be assumed by the
Committee for Review, and making conforming changes to NYSE Arca Rules
2.4, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, 10.14 and NYSE Arca Equities Rules
2.3, 3.3, 5.5, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, and 10.13; and (2)
deleting references to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc.'' and ``NYSE
Regulation'' in NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 0 and NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.3(i)(1) and replacing a reference to the ``NYSE
Regulation, Inc. Chief Executive Officer'' in NYSE Arca Equities Rules
2.100. This Amendment No. 1 to SR-NYSEArca-2016-11 amends and replaces
the original filing in its entirety. 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.

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes the following changes to the Rules of NYSE
Arca and NYSE Arca Equities:
     Amending Section 4.01(a) of the NYSE Arca's Bylaws and
NYSE Arca Rule 3.3 to establish a Committee for Review (``CFR'') as a
sub-committee of the ROC, deleting NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(3) governing
the OTP Advisory Committee and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(3)
governing the Member Advisory Committee, both of whose functions will
be assumed by the CFR, and making conforming changes to NYSE Arca Rules
2.4, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, 10.14 and NYSE Arca Equities Rules
2.3, 3.3, 5.5, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, and 10.13;
     Deleting references to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc.'' and
``NYSE Regulation'' \5\ in NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 0 and
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3(i)(1); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE regulation, a not-for-profit subsidiary of the
Exchange's affiliate New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''),
performed regulatory functions for the Exchange pursuant to an
intercompany Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA'') that gave the
Exchange the contractual right to review NYSE Regulation's
performance. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75991
(September 28, 2015), 80 FR 59837 (October 2, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-
27) (``NYSE Approval Order''). The RSA terminated on February 16,
2016. The proposed changes relating to references to NYSE Regulation
and the NYSE Regulation Chief Executive Officer are therefore
appropriate because NYSE Regulation has ceased providing regulatory
services to the Exchange, which has re-integrated its regulatory
functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Replacing a reference to the ``NYSE Regulation, Inc. Chief
Executive Officer'' in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.100.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange would effect the proposed changes described
herein no later than June 30, 2016, on a date determined by its
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    NYSE Arca, a registered securities exchange, operates a marketplace
for trading options and, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
Equities, a marketplace for trading equities.\7\ NYSE Arca administers
the disciplinary program for the options marketplace, which encompasses
investigations, adjudication of cases, and the imposition of fines and
other sanctions, and has delegated disciplinary and adjudicatory
functions for the equities marketplace to NYSE Arca Equities.\8\ As
summarized below, NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities each utilizes its
own committee structure for appeals of disciplinary decisions or
summary determinations.\9\ The Exchange proposes to amend the current
appellate structure to establish a single CFR to hear appeals for both
marketplaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE Arca Rule 10.
    \8\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.4, 3.5. 14.1 & 14.2.
    \9\ A summary determination is a determination without a hearing
where a penalty is imposed as to such charges that a respondent has
admitted or failed to answer or which otherwise does not appear to
be in dispute. See NYSE Arca Rule 10.4(c); NYSE Arca Equities Rule
10.4(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Arca
    The Exchange's disciplinary jurisdiction extends to Options Trading
Permit (``OTP'') Holders, OTP Firms and associated persons of an OTP
Firm or OTP Holder alleged to have violated or aided and abetted a
violation of any provision of the Exchange Act or the rules and
regulations thereunder, any provision of the Exchange's Bylaws or Rules
or any commentary thereof, any resolution of the Board of Directors of
the Exchange regulating the conduct of business on the Exchange, or
Exchange policy or procedure.\10\ Disciplinary proceedings are heard by
a ``Conduct Panel'' appointed by the NYSE Arca Ethics and Business
Conduct Committee (``EBCC'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 10.1.
    \11\ See NYSE Arca Rule 10.5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current NYSE Arca Rules 3.3 and 10.8, an appeal of matters
subject to the applicable provisions of NYSE Arca Rules 3.2(b)(1)(C) or
10, including a Conduct Panel decision pursuant to Rule 10.7 or summary
determination pursuant to Rule 10.4(c), may be

reviewed by the NYSE Arca Board Appeals Committee (``NYSE Arca BAC'')
or an ``Appeals Panel'' appointed by the NYSE Arca BAC.\12\ The NYSE
Arca BAC is a committee of the NYSE Arca board of directors (the ``SRO
Board'') made up of the OTP Director(s), the ETP Director(s) and all of
the Public Directors of the NYSE Arca Board of Directors.\13\ Under
current NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(1)(B), if an Appeals Panel is appointed,
it must include at least one Public Director and at least one Director
that is an OTP Holder or Allied Person of an OTP Firm.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Arca Rule 10.8. In addition, NYSE Arca Rule
3.2(b)(1)(C) provides that the NYSE Arca EBCC has the authority,
whenever it appears that an OTP Firm or OTP Holder is in violation
of NYSE Arca Rule 4 (Capital Requirements, Financial Reports,
Margin), to direct a representative of such OTP Firm or OTP Holder
to appear before the committee for examination upon 48 hours'
notice, following which the EBCC can suspend such OTP Firm or OTP
Holder until the requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 4 are fully met.
NYSE Arca Rule 10 governs disciplinary proceedings and appeals.
Under NYSE Arca Rule 10.8, the NYSE Arca BAC has the option of
appointing an Appeals Panel to review disciplinary appeals or
conduct review proceedings on its own. See also note 17, infra.
    \13\ See Article III, Section 3.02 of the bylaws of the
Exchange. An ``ETP Director'' is a director nominated by the
Equities Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders of NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. and an ``OTP Director'' is a director nominated by the OTP
Holders of the Exchange. ``Public Directors'' of the Exchange are
directors that are ``persons from the public and will not be, or be
affiliated with, a broker-dealer in securities or employed by, or
involved in any material business relationship with, the Exchange or
its affiliates''. Id.
    \14\ See NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(1)(B). See also NYSE Arca Rule
3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Arca Equities
    NYSE Arca Equities' disciplinary jurisdiction extends to any ETP
Holder or associated person of an ETP Holder alleged to have violated
or aided and abetted a violation of any provision of the Exchange Act
or the rules and regulations thereunder, any provision of NYSE Arca
Equities' Bylaws or Rules or any commentary thereof, any resolution of
the Board of Directors of NYSE Arca Equities regulating the conduct of
NYSE Arca Equities, or NYSE Arca Equities policy or procedure.\15\
Similar to NYSE Arca, disciplinary proceedings of NYSE Arca Equities
are heard by a ``Conduct Panel'' appointed by the NYSE Arca Equities
Business Conduct Committee (``BCC'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.1.
    \16\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current NYSE Arca Equities Rules 3.3 and 10.8, an appeal of
matters subject to the applicable provisions of NYSE Arca Equities
Rules 3.2(b)(1)(C), 5 or 10 may be reviewed by the NYSE Arca Equities
Board Appeals Committee (``NYSE Arca Equities BAC'').\17\ The NYSE Arca
Equities BAC is an equity committee of the NYSE Arca Equities board of
directors, and is made up of, in addition to any members of the public
on the committee, at least one director that is an ETP Holder or Allied
Person of an ETP Holder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(1)(C), like NYSE Arca Rule
3.2(b)(1)(C), provides that the NYSE Arca Equities BCC has the
authority, whenever it appears that an ETP Holder is in violation of
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4 (Capital Requirements, Financial Reports,
Margin), to direct a representative of such ETP Holder to appear
before the committee for examination upon 48 hours' notice,
following which the BCC can suspend such ETP Holder until the
requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4 are fully met. NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5 governs listing and continued listing requirements
and delisting procedures (see NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m)). NYSE
Arca does not have a comparable rule. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10
governs disciplinary proceedings and appeals. Under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 10.8, the Board Appeals Committee has the option of
appointing an Appeals Panel to review disciplinary appeals or
conduct review proceedings on its own.
    \18\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.3(a)(1)(A). See also NYSE
Arca Rule 3.1 & Rule 3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Establish CFR as a Sub-Committee of the ROC
    In 2015, the Board established a ROC as a committee of the SRO
Board.\19\ As discussed below, the Exchange proposes to create a CFR as
a sub-committee of the ROC to replace the current structure of separate
NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities BACs for the options and equities
markets. The proposed CFR would incorporate the salient requirements of
both markets' current BAC process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75155 (June 11,
2015), 80 FR 34744 (June 17, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-29) (``Release
No. 75155''). The Exchange does not propose to amend the provisions
relating to the EBCC or BCC, which will remain separate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By establishing a single CFR, the Exchange proposes to make its
appellate process consistent with that of its affiliates NYSE and NYSE
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), both of which recently established a CFR as a
subcommittee of the respective affiliate's ROC.\20\ In particular, the
Exchange proposes to incorporate the salient requirements of the NYSE
and NYSE MKT CFRs.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NYSE Approval Order, 80 FR at 59840; Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 77008 (February 1, 2016), 81 FR 6311, 6312
(February 5, 2016) (NYSEMKT 2015-106) (``NYSE MKT Approval Order'').
The NYSE and NYSE MKT CFRs became operative on February 16, 2016
following the NYSE's termination of the agreement delegating the
NYSE's regulatory functions to NYSE Regulation and NYSE MKT's
termination of the related RSA pursuant to which NYSE Regulation
performed regulatory functions for NYSE MKT.
    \21\ The NYSE and NYSE MKT CFRs were modeled on the former
committee for review of the NYSE Regulation board of directors (the
``NYSE Regulation CFR''). The salient requirements of the NYSE
Regulation CFR were set forth in Article III, Section 5 of the NYSE
Regulation Bylaws. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382, 71
FR 11251, 11259 & 11266 (February 27, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77). See
NYSE Approval Order, 80 FR at 59840 & NYSE MKT Approval Order, 81 FR
at 6313 & n. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the CFR would be composed of OTP Director(s) of NYSE
Arca, ETP Director(s) of NYSE Arca Equities and the Public Directors of
both markets \22\ and would have the authority to appoint ``CFR Appeals
Panels'' to conduct reviews of matters decided by the EBCC and BCC for
the options and equities marketplaces, respectively. CFR Appeals Panels
would also have the authority to conduct reviews of BCC determinations
to limit or prohibit the continued listing of an issuer's
securities.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Article III, Section 3.02 of the NYSE Arca Bylaws and the
NYSE Arca Equities Bylaws require that at least 50% of the directors
be ``Public Directors'', defined as persons from the public that are
not affiliated with a broker-dealer in securities. The NYSE Arca
Bylaws further require that a Public Director not be employed by, or
involved in any material business relationship with, the Exchange or
its affiliates. See note 13, supra.
    \23\ The NYSE Arca Equities BAC currently has the same mandate.
See note 17, supra. The NYSE Arca BAC's mandate does not include
reviews of delisting determinations. See notes 12 & 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect these changes, the Exchange proposes amending Section
4.01(a) of the NYSE Arca's Bylaws and NYSE Arca Rule 3.3, deleting NYSE
Arca Rule 3.2(b)(3) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(3), and make
conforming changes to NYSE Arca Rules 2.4, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11,
10.12, 10.14 and NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.3, 3.3, 5.5, 10.3, 10.6,
10.8, 10.11, 10.12, and 10.13.
    NYSE Arca Rule 3.1(a) provides the Board with authority to
establish one or more committees consisting partly or entirely of
directors of NYSE Arca. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule
3.3 to provide for a CFR and delineate its composition and functions.
    Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(A) would provide that the Board
shall annually appoint a CFR as a sub-committee of the ROC.\24\
Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(A) would provide that the CFR would
be responsible for reviewing disciplinary decisions; reviewing
determinations to limit or prohibit the continued listing of an
issuer's securities on NYSE Arca Equities; and acting in an advisory
capacity to the Board with respect to disciplinary matters, the listing
and delisting of securities, regulatory programs, rulemaking, and
regulatory rules, including trading rules. As is currently the case for
the NYSE Arca

BAC, proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2) would provide that the CFR would be
comprised of the OTP Director(s), the ETP Director(s) and all of the
Public Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 3.3(a)(1)
which describes the Board Appeals Committee and move the text, with
modifications, to proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2), following the provision
regarding the ROC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Arca
    Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(B) would provide that the CFR may
appoint a CFR Appeals Panel made up of members of the CFR. Like the
current requirements for the Appeals Panels of the NYSE Arca BAC, the
proposed Rule would provide that the CFR Appeals Panel would be made up
of no less than three but no more than five individuals. Proposed NYSE
Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(B) would provide that a CFR Appeals Panel for NYSE
Arca would, like current NYSE Arca BAC Appeals Panels provided for in
NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(1)(B), conduct reviews of matters subject to the
applicable provisions of NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(1)(C) or 10.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Under current NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Rules,
decisions by an Appeals Panels appointed by the Board Appeals
Committee of both markets are final unless appealed to the Board of
Directors or called for review by the Board of Directors. See, e.g.,
NYSE Arca Rule 10.8(b) & (d); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.8(d). The
Exchange proposes that CFR Appeals Panels retain this ability to
resolve appeals and therefore does not propose that appellate panels
appointed by the CFR would make recommendations to the CFR, as is
the case with appellate panels for the Exchange's affiliate NYSE
MKT, which did not previously have appellate panels. See NYSE MKT
Approval Order, 81 FR at 6312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(B) would further provide that
each CFR Appeals Panel would contain at least one Public Director and
at least one Director that is an OTP Holder or Allied Person or
Associated Person of an OTP Firm.\26\ This is the same as the current
requirement for Appeals Panels of the NYSE Arca BAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Section 6(b)(3) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules
of an exchange ``assure a fair representation of its members in the
selection of its directors and administration of its affairs and
provide that one or more directors shall be representative of
issuers and investors and not be associated with a member of the
exchange, broker, or dealer.'' 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). Exchange members
who serve on exchange boards thus are sometimes referred to as
``fair representation directors.'' In 2012, the Exchange expanded
the eligibility for fair representation directors to include
Associated Persons of OTP Firms and Associated Persons of ETP
Holders, and amended NYSE Arca Rule 3.3 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule
3.3 so that Associated Persons of OTP Firms and ETP Holders were
eligible for membership on the Board Appeals Committee. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68233 (November 14, 2012), 77 FR
69677, 69677 (November 20, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-103). The
Exchange proposes to carry these categories forward into proposed
NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(C) would retain the
current provision governing the NYSE Arca BAC that, subject to Rule 10,
decisions of the CFR would be subject to SRO Board review. Proposed
subsection (a)(2)(C) would also provide, like the current provision
governing the NYSE Arca BAC, that the decision of the Board shall
constitute the final action of NYSE Arca, unless the Board remands the
proceedings.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In this respect, the Exchange practice would differ from
that of its affiliates NYSE and NYSE MKT, where a decision by the
CFR would be a final action of the board of directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca also proposes to amend Article IV, Section 4.01(a) of its
Bylaws governing board committees. Specifically, NYSE Arca proposes to
replace references to the ``Board Appeals Committee'' with references
to the ``Committee for Review as a subcommittee of the Regulatory
Oversight Committee'' and ``its subcommittee, the CFR.''
    NYSE Arca proposes conforming amendments to NYSE Arca Rules 2.4,
10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, 10.14 to replace references to the
Board Appeals Committee with references to the ``Committee for Review''
or ``CFR'' and references to the Appeals Panel with references to the
``CFR Appeals Panel.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ NYSE Arca Rule 10.11(e)(1) currently provides that
appellate review of Floor citations and minor rule plan sanctions
shall be referred directly to an appropriate Board Appeals Committee
Panel (defined as an ``Appeals Panel'') appointed by the NYSE Arca
Board of Directors. Current NYSE Arca Rule 10.11(e)(2) governs
decisions by such Appeals Panels. The Exchange proposes to replace
``an appropriate Board Appeals Committee Panel (`Appeals Panel')
appointed by the Board'' in NYSE Arca Rule 10.11(e)(1) with ``CFR.''
The Exchange believes that it would be more appropriate for such
matters to be directly referred to the CFR, which can then determine
whether to appoint a CFR Appeals Panel as is currently proposed for
disciplinary appeals under NYSE Arca Rule 10.8(b). Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to add text to NYSE Arca Rule 10.11(e)(2)
providing that the CFR may appoint a CFR Appeals Panel to conduct
reviews under this subsection or may decide to conduct review
proceedings on its own. References to the ``Appeals Panel'' would be
replaced with ``CFR or CFR Appeals Panel.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Arca Equities
    Similar conforming changes are proposed for NYSE Arca Equities. In
particular, NYSE Arca Equities Rules 3.3, which mirrors NYSE Arca Rule
3.3, would be retitled ``Committee for Review'' and amended to provide
that the SRO Board shall, on an annual basis, appoint the CFR as a sub-
committee of the ROC. Proposed Rule 3.3(a)(1)(A) would provide that the
CFR may, in turn, appoint a CFR Appeals Panel for NYSE Arca Equities
market. Like the proposed CFR Appeals Panel for NYSE Arca, any CFR
Appeals Panel appointed for NYSE Arca Equities would be made up of no
less than three but no more than five individuals.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.3(a)(1) currently provides that
the Board of Directors will determine the size of any Appeals
Committee that it appoints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A CFR Appeals Panel reviewing matters related to the equities
market would conduct reviews of matters subject to the applicable
provisions of Rules 3.2(b)(1)(C), 5 or 10.\30\ As proposed, CFR Appeals
Panels for NYSE Arca Equities would have no other role in the appellate
process. Each CFR Appeals Panel would contain at least one Public
Director and at least one director that is an ETP Holder or Allied
Person or Associated Person of an ETP Holder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See note 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Outdated references to the NYSE Arca Board of Governors in NYSE
Arca Equities Rules 3.3(a)(1)(B) would be replaced with references to
the ``NYSE Arca Board of Directors.'' The current Rule would otherwise
remain unchanged. The revised provision would thus provide that,
subject to Rule 10, decisions of the CFR shall be subject to the review
of the SRO Board and that the decision of the SRO Board would
constitute the final action of NYSE Arca Equities, unless such SRO
Board remands the proceedings.
    Conforming amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.3, 5.5, 10.3,
10.6, 10.8, 10.11,\31\ 10.12, and 10.13 \32\ to replace references to
the NYSE Arca Equities BAC with references to the ``Committee for
Review'' or ``CFR'' and to replace references to the ``Appeals Panel''
with the ``CFR Appeals Panel'' are also proposed. Outdated references

to the NYSE Arca Board of Governors in NYSE Arca Equities Rules 10.3,
10.12, and 10.13 would also be replaced with references to the ``NYSE
Arca Board of Directors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.11(e)(1) currently provides that
appellate review of Floor citations and minor rule plan sanctions
shall be referred directly to an appropriate Board Appeals Committee
Panel (defined as an ``Appeals Panel'') appointed by the Board
Appeals Committee. Current NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.11(e)(2)
governs decisions by such Appeals Panels. The Exchange proposes to
replace ``an appropriate Board Appeals Committee Panel (`Appeals
Panel') appointed by the Board Appeals Committee'' in NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 10.11(e)(1) with ``CFR.'' The Exchange believes that
it would be more appropriate for such matters to be directly
referred to the CFR, which can then determine whether to appoint a
CFR Appeals Panel as is currently proposed for disciplinary appeals
under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.8(b). Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to add text to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.11(e)(2)
providing that the CFR may appoint a CFR Appeals Panel to conduct
reviews under this subsection or may decide to conduct review
proceedings on its own. A reference to ``Appeals Panel'' and two
references to ``Appeals Board'' would be replaced with ``CFR or CFR
Appeals Panel.'' See also note 28, supra.
    \32\ The Exchange also proposes to amend the heading of NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 10.13 to delete the references to ``the
Corporation,'' which refers to NYSE Arca Equities, since the
hearings and review of decisions referred to therein would be
conducted by the CFR, a subcommittee of the SRO Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committees
    The Exchange does not propose to retain the OTP Advisory Committee
of NYSE Arca or the Member Advisory Committee of NYSE Arca Equities to
act in an advisory capacity regarding disciplinary matters and trading
rules for their respective marketplaces. Under NYSE Arca Rule
3.2(b)(3), which the Exchange proposes to delete, the OTP Advisory
Committee is made up of OTP Holders and acts in an advisory capacity
regarding rule changes related to disciplinary matters and trading
rules. Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(3), which the Exchange also
proposes to delete, the Member Advisory Committee is made up of ETP
Holders and acts in an advisory capacity regarding rule changes related
to disciplinary matters and off-board trading rules.
    The Exchange proposes that the CFR would serve in the same advisory
capacity as the current OTP Advisory and Member Advisory Committees.
The Exchange notes that the same categories of permit holders as the
advisory committees would be represented on the proposed CFR, whose
mandate as set forth in proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2)(A) would include acting
in an advisory capacity to the Board with respect to disciplinary
matters, the listing and delisting of securities, regulatory programs,
rulemaking and regulatory rules, including trading rules. The proposed
CFR would therefore serve in the same advisory capacity as the OTP
Advisory and Member Advisory Committees. The Exchange accordingly
believes that retaining the OTP Advisory Committee or Member Advisory
Committee would be redundant and unnecessary. The Exchange notes that
the proposal is consistent with the structure recently approved for the
NYSE, which abolished its advisory committees and transferred the
functions to the newly created NYSE CFR, whose mandate includes acting
in an advisory capacity to the Board with respect to disciplinary
matters, the listing and delisting of securities, regulatory programs,
rulemaking and regulatory rules, including trading rules. The
Exchange's affiliate NYSE MKT has a similar structure in place.\33\ The
proposal would therefore align the functions and responsibilities of
the Exchange's CFR with those of its affiliates. Finally, the Exchange
believes that member participation on the proposed CFR would be
sufficient to provide for the fair representation of members in the
administration of the affairs of the Exchange, including rulemaking and
the disciplinary process, consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NYSE Approval Order, 80 FR at 59840 & NYSE MKT Approval
Order, 81 FR at 6312.
    \34\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). See also note 26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of References to NYSE Regulation and NYSE Regulation Chief
Executive Officer
    In connection with the Exchange's termination of the intercompany
RSA pursuant to which NYSE Regulation provided regulatory services to
the Exchange,\35\ the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca and NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 0 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3(i)(1) to remove
references to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc.'' and ``NYSE Regulation.'' The
Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.100 to
replace a reference to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc. Chief Executive
Officer'' with ``Chief Regulatory Officer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, NYSE Arca Rule 0 (Regulation of the Exchange, OTP
Holders and OTP Firms) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 0 (Regulation of the
Exchange and Exchange Trading Permit Holders), which describes the
regulatory services agreement between the NYSE and FINRA, would be
amended to remove references to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc., NYSE
Regulation staff or departments'', retaining the existing reference in
Rule 0 to Exchange staff, which reference would encompass the
Exchange's regulatory staff.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the semi-colon at the
end of the heading of Rule 0 as unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, subdivision (i)(1) of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3
(Financial Reports and Related Notices) would be amended to replace the
reference to ``NYSE Regulation'' with ``regulatory staff'' to more
particularly describe who an issuer should consult with under the Rule.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule
2.100 to replace ``NYSE Regulation, Inc. Chief Executive Officer'' with
``Chief Regulatory Officer.'' NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.100 currently
provides that, for purposes of the rule,\37\ a ``qualified Corporation
officer'' means the Chief Executive Officer of Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc., or his or her designee, or the NYSE Regulation, Inc.
Chief Executive Officer or his or her designee. ``NYSE Regulation, Inc.
Chief Executive Officer'' is used in this Rule but CRO or Chief
Regulatory Officer is used elsewhere in the Exchange's rules to
designate the same position.\38\ In particular, Chief Regulatory
Officer is used to designate the individual who can participate or
designate participants to various panels, including panels adjudicating
clearly erroneous transactions (NYSE Arca Equities 7.10) and ETP
Holders disputing an NYSE Arca Equities decision to disapprove or
disqualify it from the participating in the Retail Liquidity Program
(NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.44). Chief Regulatory Officer is also used
in NYSE Arca's Rules to designate the individual who can participate or
designate participants to panels adjudicating erroneous trades due to
system disruptions or malfunctions (NYSE Arca Rule 6.89) and
nullification and adjustment of options transactions, including obvious
errors (NYSE Arca Rule 6.87). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
replace references to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc. Chief Executive Officer''
with ``Chief Regulatory Officer'' in Rule 2.100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.100 provides that if a qualified
Affiliated Exchange (as defined therein) officer declares an
emergency condition under that market's rules, a qualified NYSE Arca
Equities officer may authorize NYSE Arca Equities to perform certain
functions on behalf of the Affiliated Exchange.
    \38\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rules 6.89 & 6.87 and NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 7.10 & 7.44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \39\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(1) \40\ in particular, in that it enables the Exchange to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Exchange Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
exchange members and persons associated with its exchange members, with
the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to amend Section 4.01(a) of the NYSE Arca Bylaws and
NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Rules 3.3 to establish a Committee for
Review as a sub-committee of the recently approved ROC, and to delete
NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(3) governing the OTP Advisory Committee and NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(3) governing the Member Advisory Committee,
both of whose functions will be assumed by the Committee for Review,
complies with Section 6(b)(7) of the Exchange

Act,\41\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and
persons associated with members. The members of the Exchange's ROC are
all Public Directors of the Exchange Board, thereby ensuring that the
ROC is comprised of independent members.\42\ The Exchange proposes to
retain in the CFR the requirement currently applicable to the Board
Appeals Committee that the committee be made up of the OTP Director(s),
the ETP Director(s) and the Public Directors of both markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \42\ See Release No. 75155, 80 FR at 34744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that permitting the CFR to appoint
CFR Appeals Panels composed of at least three and no more than five
individuals to conduct reviews of matters decided by the EBCC and BCC
for the options and equities marketplaces is consistent with Section
6(b)(7) of the Exchange Act. CFR Appeals Panels for NYSE Arca would
contain at least one Public Director and at least one Director that is
an OTP Holder or Allied Person or Associated Person of an OTP Firm, and
CFR Appeals Panels for NYSE Arca Equities would contain at least one
Public Director and at least one director that is an ETP Holder or
Allied Person or Associated Person of an ETP Holder. The Exchange
believes that the role of the CFR Appeals Panels, including that the
CFR would retain authority to determine the disposition of appeals,
would ensure that the Exchange's rules provide a fair procedure for the
disciplining of members and persons associated with members. In
addition, for the reasons stated below, the Exchange believes that
participation on the proposed CFR and CFR Appeals Panels of permit
holders and persons allied or associated with permit holders would be
sufficient to provide for the fair representation of members in the
administration of the affairs of the Exchange, including rulemaking and
the disciplinary process, consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act.
    The Exchange believes that having the Exchange Board, rather than
the board of directors of its subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, appoint
the members of the appeals panel for the equities marketplace complies
with Section 6(b)(7) of the Exchange Act. The Exchange is the entity
with ultimate legal responsibility for the regulation of its permit
holders and markets. As noted, under the proposal, the CFR would
consist of the OTP Director(s), the ETP Director(s) and the Public
Directors, thereby ensuring that CFR Appeals Panels named for the
equities marketplace would consist of at least one Public Director and
at least one director that is an ETP Holder or Allied Person or
Associated Person of an ETP Holder.
    The Exchange believes that having the CFR serve in the advisory
capacity of the OTP Advisory Committee and Member Advisory Committee
for the Exchange's options and equities marketplaces, respectively, is
consistent with and facilitates a governance and regulatory structure
that furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange
Act.\43\ The Exchange believes that permit holder participation on the
proposed CFR would be sufficient to provide for the fair representation
of members in the administration of the affairs of the Exchange,
including rulemaking and the disciplinary process, consistent with
Section 6(b)(3) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
requires the proposed rules to be consistent with and facilitate a
governance and regulatory structure that 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 mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that deleting the reference to the ``NYSE
Regulation, Inc. Chief Executive Officer'' in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
2.100 and replacing it with Chief Regulatory Officer, which is used
throughout the Exchange's rules, removes impediments to and perfects a
national market system because it would reduce potential confusion that
may result from retaining different designations for the same
individual in the Exchange's rulebook. Removing potentially confusing
conflicting designations would also further the goal of transparency
and add consistency to the Exchange's rules.
    Finally, making conforming amendments to NYSE Arca Rules 2.4, 10.3,
10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, 10.14 and NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.3, 5.5,
10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, and 10.13 in connection with creation
of the proposed CFR removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism
of a free and open market by removing confusion that may result from
having obsolete references in the Exchange's rulebook. Deleting
references to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc.'' and ``NYSE Regulation'' in NYSE
Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 0 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.3(i)(1) and references to the ``NYSE Arca Board of Governors'' in
NYSE Arca Equities Rules 3.3, 10.3, 10.12 and 10.13 removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by removing
confusion that may result from having obsolete references in the
Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange further believes that the proposal
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction,
regulators, and the investing public can more easily navigate and
understand the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange believes that
eliminating obsolete references would not be inconsistent with the
public interest and the protection of investors because investors will
not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency,
thereby reducing potential confusion. Removing such obsolete references
will also further the goal of transparency and add clarity to the
Exchange's rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule
change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is
concerned solely with the administration and functioning of the
Exchange and its board of directors.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or 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 the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the 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-NYSEArca-2016-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-11. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-11, and should
be submitted on or before May 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08299 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23245-23248]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09729]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0378; FRL-9926-93-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Plantwide
Applicability Limit Permitting Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve one revision to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Arkansas Governor to the EPA on January 7, 2014. This
submittal revises the Arkansas Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Permitting Program to incorporate by reference federal plantwide
applicability limit (PAL) permitting provisions to enable the State of
Arkansas to issue PSD PALs to sources with greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The EPA is proposing to find that the January 7, 2014
revision to the Arkansas SIP is consistent with federal requirements
for PSD permitting. The EPA is also proposing ministerial changes to
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect recent EPA SIP
approvals to the Arkansas PSD program and to show that SIP deficiencies
identified in prior partial disapprovals have been addressed. We are
proposing this action under section 110 and part C of title I of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2014-0378, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions.
     Email: Ms. Adina Wiley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2014-0378. The 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 email, 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 the 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 the EPA without going through http://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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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 the EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at (214)
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Summary of the EPA's Tailoring Rule and GHG PALs Rule
    B. Summary of the January 7, 2014 Arkansas SIP Submittal
    C. Ministerial Changes to the CFR
II. The EPA's Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and
submit to the EPA for approval into the state SIP, preconstruction
review and permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified
stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment
areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications,
collectively referred to as the New Source Review (NSR) SIP. The CAA
NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the
CAA and applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS)--``attainment areas''--as well as areas where there is
insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS--
``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR SIP program is established in part D
of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment
of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.'' The Minor NSR SIP program
addresses construction or modification activities that do not emit, or
have the potential to emit, beyond certain major source thresholds, and
thus do not qualify as ``major,'' and applies regardless of the
designation of the area in which a source is located. The EPA
regulations governing the criteria that states must satisfy for EPA
approval of the NSR programs as part of the SIP are contained in 40 CFR
51.160-51.166.

A. Summary of the EPA's Tailoring Rule and GHG PALs Rule

    On June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule, known as the
Tailoring Rule, which phased in permitting requirements for GHG
emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V
permitting programs (75 FR 31514). For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule,
which began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title V requirements applied to
sources of GHG emissions only if the sources were subject to PSD or
title V ``anyway'' due to their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. These
sources are referred to as ``anyway sources.'' Step 2 of the Tailoring
Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, applied the PSD and title V
permitting requirements under the CAA to sources that were classified
as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their
potential GHG emissions and to modifications of otherwise major sources
that required a

PSD permit because they increased only GHG above applicable levels in
the EPA regulations.
    On July 12, 2012, the EPA promulgated the final ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits'' (GHG Tailoring Rule
Step 3 and GHG PALs).\1\ 77 FR 41051. In the Tailoring Rule Step 3
portion of this rule, the EPA decided against further phase in of the
PSD and Title V requirements to apply to sources emitting lower levels
of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the thresholds for determining PSD
applicability based on emission of greenhouse gases remained the same
as established in Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule. The Step 3 portions of
the EPA's July 12, 2012 final rule are not relevant to today's proposed
action on the Arkansas SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a complete history of EPA's rulemakings related to GHG
emissions please review the following final actions: ``Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).
    ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GHG PALs portion of the July 12, 2012 final rule promulgated
revisions to the EPA regulations under 40 CFR part 52 for establishing
PALs for GHG emissions. For a full discussion of the EPA's rationale
for the GHG PALs provisions, see the notice of final rulemaking at 77
FR 41051. A PAL establishes a site-specific plantwide emission level
for a pollutant that allows the source to make changes at the facility
without triggering the requirements of the PSD program, provided that
emissions do not exceed the PAL level. Under the EPA's interpretation
of the federal PAL provisions, such PALs are already available under
PSD for non-GHG pollutants and for GHGs on a mass basis, and the EPA
revised the PAL regulations to allow for GHG PALs to be established on
a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis as well. See 77 FR 41052. The
EPA finalized these revisions in an effort to streamline federal and
SIP PSD permitting programs by allowing sources and permitting
authorities to address GHGs using a PAL in a manner similar to the use
of PALs for non-GHG pollutants. See 77 FR 41051, 41052.

B. Summary of the January 7, 2014 Arkansas SIP Submittal

    On April 2, 2013, the EPA approved a revision to the Arkansas SIP
providing the State of Arkansas the authority to regulate and permit
emissions of GHGs under the Arkansas PSD Program and simultaneously
rescinded the GHG PSD FIP for Arkansas. See 78 FR 19596. Arkansas
submitted on January 7, 2014, regulations specific to the Arkansas GHG
PSD permitting program for approval by the EPA into the Arkansas SIP.
The January 7, 2014, SIP revision submittal includes the PSD permitting
provisions that were adopted on June 28, 2013, at the Arkansas
Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's (``Commission'') Regulation
Number 19, Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air
Pollution Control (hereinafter Regulation 19 at 19.904(A)(1) and (G)(1)
that provide the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
the ability to issue GHG PSD PALs consistent with the ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits Final Rule'' (77 FR
41051). The January 7, 2014 submittal also included a non-substantive
revision to the Regulation 19.904(E)(3) to correct a reference to
federal air quality models for PSD permitting. Today's proposal and the
accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) present our rationale for
approving these regulations as meeting the minimum federal requirements
for the adoption and implementation of the PSD SIP permitting programs.

C. Ministerial Changes to the CFR

    We are proposing ministerial changes to 40 CFR 52.170(e) and 40 CFR
52.172(b) which reflect that deficiencies identified in in our partial
disapproval of ADEQ's December 17, 2007 and March 28, 2008 SIP
submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been adequately
addressed by the State. We are proposing the changes because we fully
approved the revisions to the Arkansas PSD program providing the
authority to regulate and permit emissions of GHGs on April 2, 2013 (78
FR 19596). As a result of our full approval of the Arkansas PSD program
for GHGs, the partial disapproval is no longer applicable.
    We are also proposing a ministerial change to 40 CFR 52.181(a) to
show that the EPA approved a revision to the Arkansas PSD program on
April 2, 2013, to provide the state the authority to regulate and
permit GHGs. See 78 FR 19596.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    The EPA's most recent approval to the Arkansas PSD program was on
March 4, 2015, where we updated our approval of the Arkansas PSD
program to include the December 1, 2014 submitted revisions to provide
the ADEQ the authority to regulate and permit emissions of fine
particulate matter and its precursors consistent with federal
requirements. Our March 4, 2015 final action did not address the
pending submittal regarding the GHG PSD PALs submitted on January 7,
2014. See 80 FR 11573.
    The State of Arkansas has adopted and submitted one revision to the
PSD program on January 7, 2014, affecting Regulation 19.904--Adoption
of Regulations, Sections 19.904(A)(1), (E)(3), and (G)(1). The
revisions to Regulation 19.904(A)(1) and (G)(1) have been submitted to
provide for the issuance of GHG PSD PAL permits through the
incorporation by reference of the federal regulations at 40 CFR
52.21(aa) and the adoption of revisions to the definition of
``Greenhouse gases'' that are consistent with the requirements
promulgated by EPA in our final rule on July 12, 2012, titled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits.'' See 77
FR 41501. In addition, the revision to Regulation 19.904(E)(3) updates
a reference to the federal air quality models used for PSD permitting.
    The ADEQ has adopted and submitted regulations that are consistent
with the federal regulations for the permitting of GHG-emitting sources
through a GHG PSD PAL effective as of August 13, 2012. The detailed
analysis in our TSD demonstrates that the revisions to Regulation
19.904(A)(1) incorporate by reference the GHG PSD PAL provisions at 40
CFR 52.21(aa), effective on August 13, 2012. The revisions to
Regulation 19.904(G)(1) revise the Arkansas PSD SIP provisions for GHG
PSD permitting to amend the definition of ``GHGs'' to mirror the
provisions promulgated by the EPA on July 12, 2012, effective on August
13, 2012, for the issuance of GHG PSD PALs.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency,\2\ issued a
decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to
GHG emissions. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs
as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a

source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a
PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require
that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants
other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).The Supreme
Court decision effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG
emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ``anyway sources'' and
invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that
implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that
implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. A copy of the judgment is
included in the docket to this rulemaking.\3\ The amended judgment
preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the
application of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement
to GHG emissions from sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs (``anyway'' sources).
The D.C. Circuit's judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the
litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the extent they
require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases
are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential
to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which
there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Original case is Coalition for Responsible Regulation v.
EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 09-1322, 06/26/20, judgment entered for No. 09-
1322 on 04/10/2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA may need to take additional steps to revise federal PSD
rules in light of the Supreme Court decision and recent D.C. Circuit
judgment. In addition, the EPA anticipates that many states will revise
their existing SIP-approved PSD programs. The EPA is not expecting
states to have revised their existing PSD program regulations at this
juncture. However, the EPA is evaluating PSD program submissions to
assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent
with both decisions.
    Arkansas's existing approved SIP contains the greenhouse gas
permitting requirements required under 40 CFR 51.166, as amended in the
Tailoring Rule. As a result, the State's SIP-approved PSD permitting
program continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based
on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT when sources emit or
increase greenhouse gases in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (tpy),
measured as carbon dioxide equivalent. Although the SIP-approved
Arkansas PSD permitting program may also currently contain provisions
that are no longer necessary in light of the D.C. Circuit's judgment or
the Supreme Court decision, this does not prevent the EPA from
approving the submission addressed in this rule. Arkansas's January 7,
2014 SIP submission does not add any greenhouse gas permitting
requirements that are inconsistent with either decision.
    Likewise, this revision does add to the Arkansas SIP elements of
the EPA's July 12, 2012 rule implementing Step 3 of the phase in of PSD
permitting requirements for greenhouse gases described in the Tailoring
Rule, which became effective on August 13, 2012. Specifically, the
incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions will allow GHG-emitting
sources to obtain PALs for their GHG emissions on a CO2e
basis. The GHG PAL provisions, as currently written, include some
provisions that may no longer be appropriate in light of both the D.C.
Circuit judgment and the Supreme Court decision. Since the Supreme
Court has determined that sources and modifications may not be defined
as ``major'' solely on the basis of the level of greenhouse gases
emitted or increased, PALs for greenhouse gases may no longer have
value in some situations where a source might have triggered PSD based
on greenhouse gas emissions alone. However, PALs for GHGs may still
have a role to play in determining whether a modification that triggers
PSD for a pollutant other than greenhouse gases should also be subject
to BACT for greenhouse gases. These provisions, like the other GHG
provisions discussed previously, may be revised at some future time.
However, these provisions do not add new requirements for sources or
modifications that only emit or increase greenhouse gases above the
major source threshold or the 75,000 tpy greenhouse gas level in
section 52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs provisions provide increased
flexibility to sources that wish to address their GHG emissions in a
PAL. Since this flexibility may still be valuable to sources in at
least one context described above, we believe that it is appropriate to
approve these provisions into the Arkansas SIP at this juncture.
    In a related matter, on July 12, 2013 the D.C. Circuit, in Center
for Biological Diversity v. EPA,\4\ vacated the provisions of the
Biomass Deferral, which had delayed (for three years) the applicability
of PSD and title V requirements to biogenic CO2 emissions.
While the opportunity to seek rehearing of this D.C. Circuit decision
remains open and thus the ultimate disposition of the Federal
regulations implementing the Biomass Deferral has not yet been
determined, the three-year deferral expired on July 21, 2014.
Consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(ii)(a), the provision in the
approved Arkansas PSD SIP at Regulation 19.904(G)(2)(b) implementing
the Biomass Deferral does not apply after the July 21, 2014 date
contained therein. Thus, this prior approval does not conflict with the
D.C. Circuit's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ has also adopted and submitted a revision to the SIP-approved
provisions at Regulation 19.904(E)(3) to update the reference to the
federal air quality models to be used for PSD permitting. The reference
now reads 40 CFR 52.21(l)(2) as opposed to the prior incorrect
reference to 40 CFR 52.21(2). The EPA proposes to find that the ADEQ
has correctly revised the Arkansas PSD program to reference federal
requirements.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the January 7, 2014 submitted
revisions to the Arkansas PSD Permitting Program at Regulation
19.904(A)(1), (E)(3), and (G)(1) into the Arkansas SIP. The EPA is
proposing to determine that the January 7, 2014 revision is approvable
because the submitted rules are adopted and submitted in accordance
with the CAA and are consistent with the EPA's regulations regarding
PSD permitting for emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the EPA proposes to
approve the following as a revision to the Arkansas PSD SIP:
     Substantive revisions to Regulation 19.904(A)(1)
incorporating by reference the federal GHG PSD PAL permitting
provisions,
     Revisions to Regulation 19.904(E)(3) to update the
reference to federal PSD air quality models at 40 CFR 52.21(l)(2), and
     Substantive revisions to Regulation 19.904(G)(1)
establishing the requirements for GHG PSD PAL permits consistent with
federal requirements.
    The EPA is also proposing ministerial changes to 40 CFR 52.170(e)
and 40 CFR 52.172(b) which reflect that deficiencies

identified in our partial disapproval of the December 17, 2007 and
March 28, 2008 Arkansas SIP submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
were addressed by our approval of Arkansas PSD program revisions which
provide the authority to regulate and permit emissions of GHGs on April
2, 2013 (78 FR 19596). We are also proposing a ministerial change to 40
CFR 52.181(a) to reflect that the EPA approved a revision to the PSD
program for the authority to regulate and permit emissions of GHGs on
April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19596).
    The EPA is proposing these actions under section 110 and part C of
the Act, and for the reasons stated above.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the revisions to the Arkansas PSD Program at
Regulation 19.904 discussed in section II of this preamble. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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 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);
     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 is not proposed to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds, and Incorporation by reference.

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

    Dated: April 17, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-09729 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P