[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46433]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21381]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0386; FRL-9968-75-Region 7]

Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans; Adoption
of a New Chapter Under the Nebraska Administrative Code

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
state of Nebraska on November 14, 2011. Nebraska is adding a new
chapter titled ``Visibility Protection'' which provides Nebraska
authority to implement Federal regulations relating to Regional Haze
and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The chapter incorporates
by reference EPA's Guidelines for BART Determiniations under the
Regional Haze Rule. The revision to the SIP meets the visibility
component of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
November 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0386, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments connot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Crable, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action to add
chapter 43, ``Visibilty Protection''. We have published a direct final
rule approving the State's SIP revision in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, because we view this as
a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment.
We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the
direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take
further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we
will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We
would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. For further information, please see the information
provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 25, 2017.
Cathy Stepp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017-21381 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Exhibit 12 presents the total annual burden hours and labor costs to
permittee respondents, and State and Federal governments.  It summarizes
the burden and cost calculations previously presented in Exhibits 2, 4a,
7, 8, 9, and 10.  The annual burden for respondents is 2,015,231 hours
and the annual burden to State governments is 51,446 hours.

Exhibit 12.	Respondent Universe and Burden and Costs

	Annual Burden (Hrs.)	Annual Costs

Recordkeeping	1,773,388	$80,762,184

Reporting	186,689	$7,680,404

Part 435 Certification	53,516	$1,956,010

Part 434 Coal Remining and Western Alkaline	1,638	$74,922

Total for Permittees	2,015,231	$90,473,520

State Governments	51,446	$1,880,359

TOTAL Respondents	2,066,677	$92,353,878

Federal Governments	16,837	$657,634

Note: Totals may not match exactly due to individual rounding.

6.e	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

The total annual bottom line burden hours and costs for respondents
(Permittees and States) are 2,066,677 burden hours and $92,353,878,
which is all labor cost.  This is summarized in Exhibit 13 below.

Exhibit 13.	Bottom Line Annual Burden, Responses, Respondents and Costs

	Annual Burden (Hrs.)	Responses	Respondents	Labor Cost	Capital and O&M
Cost

Permittees (Private)	1,890,399	454,081	435,313	$85,910,910	$-

	Permittees (Municipal)	124,832	24,196	15,112	$4,562,610	$-

State	51446.2	29,308	46	$1,880,359	$-

Total State and Municipal	176,278	53,504	15,158	$6,442,968	$-

	Total Respondents	2,066,677	507,585	450,471	$92,353,878	$-

Sources	Exhibit 3

Exhibit 9	Exhibit 4a

Exhibit 4b	Exhibit 4c	Exhibit 8

Exhibit 10

	6.f	Reasons for Change in Burden

The current burden approved by OMB for this ICR is 1,871,520. That is
195,157 (10.4%) more hours that are being requested.  The primary
reasons for the increase are:

The increase in the number of expected stormwater construction and other
non- stormwater general permittees.

Noncompliance for CAFO Permittees is now included in this ICR.

6.g	Burden Statement

The annual average reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information by facilities responding is estimated to be
4.47 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual average of 2,015,231 hours of
burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 450,425 unique
facilities).  The State reporting and recordkeeping burden is estimated
to average 1,118 hours per State respondent (i.e., an annual average of
51,446 hours of burden divided among 46 States).  Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0142, which is available for public viewing at the
Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
202-566-2426.  An electronic version of the public docket is available
through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
http://www.regulations.gov/.  Use FDMS to submit or view public
comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public
docket, and to access documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  Once in the system, key in the docket ID number
identified above.  You can also send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0142 and OMB control
number 2040-0258 in any correspondence.

 A copy of the approved supporting statements for these ICRs are
included as Appendix A. Note that this supporting statement does not go
into the details of the specific provisions of each of those programs.
Nevertheless, the tables and calculations contain the migrated burden.

 Subpart B, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda from EPA ICR 2015.02, OMB
2040-0242 has been added.

 Subpart B, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda from EPA ICR 2015.02, OMB
2040-0242 has been added.

 Many of the same environmental controls promoted as part of a BMP Plan
currently may be used by industry in stormwater pollution prevention
plans; spill prevention and response plans (30 CFR 254); Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety plans; fire protection
programs; insurance requirements; Federal, State, or local requirements;
or standard operating procedures. Additionally, permittees may have
already developed pollution prevention programs or controls such as
source reduction, recycling, and reuse which may be similar to those
promoted as part of a BMP Plan.  When a BMP issue is already addressed
via a separate regulatory program, the BMP Plan is expected to reference
those efforts, not duplicate them.  Where operating manuals, standard
operating plans, or other documents have been developed to address other
regulatory requirements (e.g., OSHA, RCRA, etc.) these may be
cross-referenced in the BMP Plan.

 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2) Unless the agency is able to demonstrate, in its
submission for OMB clearance, that such characteristic of the collection
of information is necessary to satisfy statutory requirements or other
substantial need, OMB will not approve a collection of information (i)
Requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often
than quarterly; (ii) Requiring respondents to prepare a written response
to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of
it;

 The facility type indicator field was used in PCS to categorize whether
a facility was municipal or non-municipal.  All facilities coded as
“M” for “Municipal” were selected as Municipal facilities.  All
facilities coded as “I” for “Industrial,” “F” for
“Federal,” or “O” for “Other” were selected as Non-Municipal
facilities.

 See EPA ICR No. 1427.07 for detailed explanation of the assumptions
regarding Part 435

 These numbers are expected to decrease when the 2003 CAFO rule is
revised to incorporate the February 28, 2005 decision of the U.S. Second
Circuit Court of Appeals that reduced the number of CAFOs required to
have NPDES permits.

 In the previous 2004 ICR (EPA ICR No. 1427.07) EPA estimated that 75
percent of the major facilities would submit compliance schedule reports
per year.  The percentage was revised based on input from EPA’s Water
Permits Division, 2007.

 This number is expected to decrease when the 2003 CAFO rule is revised
to incorporate the February 28, 2005 decision of the U.S. Second Circuit
Court of Appeals that reduced the number of CAFOs required to have NPDES
permits.

 Calculations for the number or respondents for other noncompliance were
incorrect in the 2004 ICR. Corrections are taken for this ICR. In 2004
the number of major and minor permits administered by the State was
5,678 and 42,472 respectively. The number of major and minor permits
administered by the EPA was 887 and 2,487 respectively. Following the
logic presented in the text, Exhibit 9 should have reported 538
(5,678*0.02 + 42,472*0.01) permits for States and 43 (887*0.02 +
2,487*0.01) permits for EPA submitting other noncompliance; instead, it
reported 1,926 and 134.

 See EPA ICR No. 1427.07 for
det楡敬硥汰湡瑡潩景琠敨愠獳浵瑰潩獮爠来牡楤杮
倠牡⁴㌴⸵഍ഃЍ഍ഃЍ഍഍഍഍഍潃灭楬湡散䄠獳獥
浳湥⁴䍉॒慐敧
ࠍഈऍ敓瑰浥敢⁲〲㜰഍഍഍剄䙁⁔潃灭楬湡散䄠獳獥
浳湥⁴䍉॒慐敧
ࠍഈऍ敓瑰浥敢⁲〲㜰഍഍഍剄䙁⁔潃灭楬湡散䄠獳獥
浳湥⁴䍉॒慐敧
ࠍഈऍ敓瑰浥敢⁲〲㜰഍഍഍剄䙁⁔潃灭楬湡散䄠獳獥
浳湥⁴䍉॒慐敧
ࠍഈऍ敓瑰浥敢⁲〲㜰഍഍഍剄䙁⁔潃灭楬湡散䄠獳獥
浳湥⁴䍉॒慐敧
ࠍഈऍ敓瑰浥敢⁲〲㜰഍഍഍഍഍഍഍഍഍഍


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9062-9064]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3416]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63885; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Disapproving Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA
Rule 6140 (Other Trading Practices)

February 10, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On October 29, 2010, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 6140, Other
Trading Practices. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on November 12, 2010.\3\ The Commission
received two comments on the proposal.\4\ On December 21, 2010, the
Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change, to February 10, 2011.\5\ On January 24, 2011, FINRA submitted a
response letter to the comments.\6\ This order disapproves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63256 (November 5,
2010), 75 FR 69503 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters from Gary S. Sheller, CFP, Sheller Financial
Services, dated November 24, 2010 (``Sheller Letter''); and Michael
S. Nichols, PhD, Principal/Financial Advisor, Cutter Advisors Group,
dated November 29, 2010 (``Cutter Letter'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63582 (December 21,
2010), 75 FR 81704 (December 28, 2010).
    \6\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Stephanie M. Dumont, Senior Vice President and Director of
Capital Markets Policy, FINRA, dated January 24, 2011 (``FINRA
Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA Rule 6140 provides that FINRA members may, but are not
obligated to, accept stop orders in NMS stocks, as that term is defined
in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS.\7\ In addition, FINRA Rule 6140
provides that a stop order becomes a market order, or a stop limit
order becomes a limit order, when a transaction takes place at or above
the stop price (in the case of a buy stop order) or at or below the
stop price (in the case of a sell stop order).\8\ Thus, under FINRA
Rule 6140, a stop order cannot be triggered by the publication of a
quotation at the stop price, but only by a transaction.\9\ FINRA
proposes to eliminate these provisions governing the handling of stop
orders in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Rule 6140(h) and (i).
    \8\ See FINRA Rule 6140(h).
    \9\ See FINRA Rule 6140(h) and (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal to eliminate entirely from its rules
those provisions governing the handling of stop orders, FINRA states
that its members believe quotations may be a better indicator of the
current price of a security than transactions, and have requested that
FINRA provide members the flexibility to determine whether the trigger
of a stop order will be based on transactions or quotations at the stop
price. FINRA represents that its rules do not typically define the
parameters of the various order types that members may accept and that
FINRA believes that members should have the ability to define the
triggering event for stop orders as well as to design their systems
consistent with such determination. In addition,

FINRA notes that it expects that, irrespective of whether a transaction
or quotation is used as the trigger for a customer stop order, each
member will apply the approach consistently firm-wide to all customer
orders and fully disclose its practice to its customers.
    Finally, FINRA proposes to relocate the definition of ``initial
public offering'' from Rule 6220 (Definitions) to Rule 6130
(Transactions Related to Initial Public Offerings). FINRA proposes no
substantive changes to this definition.

III. Summary of Comment Letters and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received two comment letters objecting to the
proposed rule change. The commenters generally were concerned with the
use of quotations as a trigger for stop orders.\10\ One commenter
believed that the triggering event for a stop order should be a
transaction, and expressed concern that activating a stop order ``based
solely upon a bid opens the process to manipulation by those inclined
to do so by flashing bids during market turbulence.'' \11\ In response,
FINRA notes that FINRA Rule 5210 already prohibits the publication of a
quotation that is not bona fide, and therefore the practice of flashing
quotations for the sole purpose of activating a stop order, without the
intention of trading at the price and volume quoted, is
impermissible.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Cutter Letter and Sheller Letter, supra note 4.
    \11\ See Sheller Letter, supra note 4.
    \12\ See FINRA Letter, supra note 6, at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other commenter expressed concern that investors and financial
advisors would not know whether the triggering event was a quote or a
trade, and believed that investors would have a legitimate complaint if
their stop order was triggered by a quote and there was no evidence it
ever traded at that price.\13\ FINRA responds that it does not believe
that it is appropriate at this time for FINRA to dictate the
definitions for the order types offered by a member to its customers,
and notes that numerous member firms have concluded that quotes are the
more appropriate triggering event for stop orders. FINRA believes that
each member should be permitted to determine whether it will use quotes
or transactions to trigger stop orders, provided that the member's
approach is disclosed to its customers and is consistently applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Cutter Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Under section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act, the Commission shall approve
a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds
that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable
to such organization.\14\ The Commission shall disapprove a proposed
rule change if it does not make such a finding.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(ii); see also 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3) (``The burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations issued thereunder * * * is on the self-regulatory
organization that proposed the rule change * * * A mere assertion
that the proposed rule change is consistent with those requirements
* * * is not sufficient.'') The description of a proposed rule
change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis
of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding. See 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). Any failure of a self-
regulatory organization to provide the information elicited by Form
19b-4 may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to
make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
issued thereunder that are applicable to the self-regulatory
organization. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\16\ In particular, the Commission does not find
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of
the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities
association be designed, among other things, ``to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade * * * and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In disapproving the proposed rule change, the Commission
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes to delete in its entirety the provisions of Rule
6140 relating to the handling of stop orders in NMS stocks by member
firms. Those provisions currently require that stop orders offered by
member firms be triggered (i.e., become a market order or limit order)
by a transaction in the security. Accordingly, this requirement should
be providing customers certainty with respect to the operation of a key
element of their stop orders.
    By proposing to eliminate this provision, FINRA effectively would
allow member firms to offer stop orders to customers that are triggered
by a transaction, a quote or another mechanism altogether. While FINRA,
in its ``Statement of the Purpose'' of the proposed rule change, notes
that it ``expects'' each member to apply its approach to stop orders
consistently and fully disclose its practice to its customers, FINRA
has not clearly made this expectation enforceable by requiring
consistency and customer disclosure in its rules.
    The Commission acknowledges that some may believe a quotation is a
better trigger mechanism for stop orders than a transaction, and there
may be good reasons for allowing FINRA to provide flexibility for this
in its rules. FINRA, however, has not articulated any such reasons. In
addition, the Commission believes that, if FINRA rules were to permit
members flexibility in the types of stop orders they offer, those rules
should clearly require, at a minimum, that the member disclose to
customers the type of stop order it offers. The Commission believes the
regulatory framework should promote the ability of investors to
understand the key attributes of order types offered by their brokers
so that they can make an informed choice as to whether to use a
particular type of order. This is especially true with more complex
order types, such as stop loss orders, and particularly if FINRA rules
permit a variety of stop loss orders to be offered.
    Because of this potential investor confusion, and resulting
investor harm, that could result from FINRA's proposed rule change, the
Commission is concerned the proposal is not designed, among other
things, to protect investors and the public interest, and promote just
and equitable principles of trade, as required by Section 15A(b)(6) of
the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change filed by FINRA, and its
subsequent response to comments, does not adequately address these
concerns. FINRA's proposal simply states that ``FINRA believes that
adopting the proposed rule change will provide members with the
flexibility to determine whether the execution of stop orders will be
triggered by transactions or quotations in the subject security without
compromising investor protection.'' \18\ Neither the proposed rule
change, nor FINRA's subsequent response to comments, offers any
substantive explanation as to why providing flexibility in the types of
stop orders offered by members--particularly without a clearly
enforceable disclosure requirement--is consistent with the provisions
of Section 15A(b)(6) referenced above. The Commission notes that Rule
700(b)(3) of its Rules of Practice reiterates that ``[t]he burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change

is consistent with the Exchange Act * * * is on the self-regulatory
organization that proposed the rule change'' and that a ``mere
assertion that the proposed rule change is consistent with those
requirements * * * is not sufficient.'' \19\ For the reasons
articulated above, the Commission does not believe that FINRA has met
that burden in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \19\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association,
and, in particular, with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2010-055) be, and hereby is,
disapproved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3416 Filed 2-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 53807]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-459-000]

Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of The Golden Pass Amendment Project

    On May 21, 2020, Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC (Golden Pass LNG)
filed an application in Docket No. CP20-459-000 requesting a limited
amendment to its December 21, 2016 Order under Docket No. CP14-517-000
that granted Golden Pass LNG authority to site, construct, and operate
facilities for the exportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Golden
Pass LNG proposes to increase the total LNG production capacity of the
Golden Pass Export Project in Jefferson County, Texas. The proposed
project is known as the Golden Pass Amendment Project (Project).
    On May 28, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--November 6, 2020
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--February 4, 2021

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    The Project would increase the authorized LNG production capacity
of Golden Pass LNG's facilities currently under construction from 15.6
million metric tons per annum (MTPA) to 18.1 MTPA. The Project LNG
capacity increasewould not require any additional facility
construction. Golden Pass LNG states the increase is based on a
recalculation of the maximum design LNG production capability of the
facilities. Golden Pass LNG would coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard
regarding any potential increases in marine traffic due to the capacity
increase.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP20-459), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 25, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19102 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37307-37308]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16805]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0040; FRL-9965-76-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Alaska: Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Whenever a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) is promulgated, each state must submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such standard, commonly
referred to as infrastructure requirements. On July 9, 2012, Alaska
submitted a plan to address the infrastructure requirements for the
lead (Pb) NAAQS promulgated on October 15, 2008. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the plan as meeting Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0040. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and is publicly
available only in hard copy form. Public docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the EPA Region 10 Office of Air
and Waste, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA
requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below, to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit,
Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency--
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206)
553-6357; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

    On July 9, 2012, Alaska submitted a SIP to meet the infrastructure
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for multiple NAAQS,
including the Pb NAAQS. On May 31, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve
the submission as meeting certain infrastructure requirements for the
Pb NAAQS (82 FR 24914). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further
explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period
for this proposal ended on June 30, 2017. We received no comments.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Alaska's July 9, 2012, SIP submission as
meeting the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We note that this action does not address
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, which was
approved on August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45103).

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 10, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 26, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. In Sec.  52.70, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements--2008 Lead NAAQS'' at the
end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.70   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Applicable geographic       State
     Name of SIP provision       or nonattainment area  submittal date  EPA approval date         Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(2) Infrastructure        Statewide.............          7/9/12  8/10/17 [insert    Approves SIP for
 Requirements--2008 Lead NAAQS.                                          Federal Register   purposes of CAA
                                                                         citation].         sections
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M) for the
                                                                                2008 Lead NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-16805 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P