[Federal Register: February 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7274-7276]
[DOCID:fr18fe10-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2004-N-0390] (formerly Docket No. 2004N-0503)

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance on Consultation Procedures: Foods Derived
From New Plant Varieties

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the information collection provisions of
FDA's consultation procedures for foods derived from new plant
varieties, including the information collection provisions in the
guidance entitled ``Consultation Procedures: Foods Derived From New
Plant Varieties,'' and in Form FDA 3665 entitled ``Final Consultation
For Food Derived From a New Plant Variety (Biotechnology Final
Consultation),'' which developers may use to prepare the final
consultation in a standard format.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by April 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology. In the Federal
Register of November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68379), FDA published a previous
60-day notice requesting public comment on this proposed collection of
information. FDA is publishing this notice to update comments. Comments
previously submitted to the Division of Dockets Management do not need
to be resubmitted because all such comments that are responsive to the
comment request will be summarized and responded to in the Information
Collection Request, i.e. 30-day notice, submitted to OMB.

Guidance on Consultation Procedures: Foods Derived From New Plant
Varieties

    Since 1992, when FDA issued its Statement of Policy: Foods Derived
from New Plant Varieties (the 1992 policy) (57 FR 22984, May 29, 1992),
FDA has encouraged developers of new plant varieties, including those
varieties that are developed through biotechnology, to consult with FDA
during the plant development process to discuss possible scientific and
regulatory issues that might arise. In the 1992 policy, FDA explained
that, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act),
developers of new foods (in this

document food refers to both human food and animal feed) have a
responsibility to ensure that the foods they offer to consumers are
safe and are in compliance with all requirements of the act (57 FR
22984 at 22985).
    FDA has long regarded it to be a prudent practice for producers who
use biotechnology in the manufacture or development of foods and food
ingredients to work cooperatively with FDA to ensure that products
derived through biotechnology are safe and comply with all applicable
legal requirements. Consequently, FDA instituted a voluntary
consultation process with industry. The guidance on Consultation
Procedures: From New Plant Varieties (originally published in 1996 and
revised October 1997; the updated version is available on FDA's Web
site at http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances) fosters communication by
encouraging developers to submit to FDA their evaluation of the food
safety of their new plant variety. Such communication will help to
ensure that any potential food safety issues regarding a new plant
variety are resolved during development, and will help to ensure that
all market entry decisions by the industry are made consistently and in
full compliance with the standards of the act.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information include developers of new plant varieties intended for food
use.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FDA
 Activity    Form        No. of        Annual Frequency     Total Annual       Hours per         Total Hours
              No.      Respondents       per Response         Responses        Response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial     None                  20                   2                40               4                   160
 consultat
 ion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final       FDA                   12                   1                12             150                 1,800
 consultat   3665
 ion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                1,960
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

A. Initial Consultations

    Initial consultations are generally a one-time burden, although a
developer might return more than once to discuss additional issues
before submitting a final consultation. As noted in its guidance to
industry, FDA encourages developers to consult early in the development
phase of their products, and as often as necessary. Historically, firms
developing a new bioengineered plant variety intended for food use have
generally initiated consultation with FDA early in the process of
developing such a variety, even though there is no legal obligation for
such consultation. These consultations have served to make FDA aware of
foods and food ingredients before these products are distributed
commercially, and have provided FDA with the information necessary to
address any potential questions regarding the safety, labeling, or
regulatory status of the food or food ingredient. As such, these
consultations have provided assistance to both industry and the agency
in exercising their mutual responsibilities under the act.
    Generally, for an initial consultation, a developer requests a
meeting by sending FDA a letter with an agenda. A mutually convenient
time is arranged and the developer comes to discuss their product. In
preparation for a meeting, a developer might prepare written materials
or a slide presentation to discuss their product under development. A
meeting between the developer and FDA typically lasts between 1 and 2
hours. As a result of such a meeting, FDA establishes a file called a
biotechnology notification file, or BNF, to collect all documentation
and communication regarding the bioengineered plant. For example, FDA
typically places information such as the developer's letter, agenda,
and any written materials (such as copies of a slide presentation) in a
BNF, as well as any memorandum FDA prepares as a record of the meeting.
FDA has not issued any recommendations as to the format for these types
of materials (e.g., there is no form associated with requesting a
meeting).
    Depending on the introduced trait, the experience the developer has
had with the kind of modification being considered, and their
familiarity with the consultation procedures, a developer might choose
to do a final consultation without an initial consultation.

B. Final Consultations

    Final consultations are a one-time burden. At some stage in the
process of research and development, a developer will have accumulated
the information that the developer believes is adequate to ensure that
food derived from the new plant variety is safe and that it
demonstrates compliance with the relevant provisions of the act. The
developer will then be in a position to conclude any ongoing
consultation with FDA. The developer submits to FDA a summary of the
safety and nutritional assessment that has been conducted about the
bioengineered food that is intended to be introduced into commercial
distribution. FDA evaluates the submission to ensure that all potential
safety and regulatory questions have been addressed. FDA has recently
developed a form that prompts a developer to include certain elements
in the final consultation in a standard format. New Form FDA 3665 is
entitled ``Final Consultation For Food Derived From a New Plant Variety
(Biotechnology Final Consultation).'' The form, and elements that would
be prepared as attachments to the form, can be submitted in electronic
format.
    The summary information of the safety and nutritional assessment
for a new plant variety submitted to FDA (on the form and in
attachments to the form) includes the following information:
     The name of the bioengineered food and the crop from which
it is derived;
     A description of the various applications or uses of the
bioengineered food, including animal feed uses;
     Information concerning the sources, identities, and
functions of introduced genetic material;
     Information on the purpose or intended technical effect of
the modification, and its expected effect on the composition or
characteristic properties of the food or feed;
     Information concerning the identity and function of
expression products encoded by the introduced genetic material,
including an estimate of the concentration of any expression product in
the bioengineered crop or food derived therefrom;
     Information regarding any known or suspected allergenicity
and toxicity of expression products and the basis for

concluding that foods containing the expression products can be safely
consumed;
     Information comparing the composition or characteristics
of the bioengineered food to that of food derived from the parental
variety or other commonly consumed varieties of the same crop with
special emphasis on important nutrients, and toxicants that occur
naturally in the food;
     A discussion of the available information that addresses
whether the potential for the food derived from a bioengineered plant
to induce an allergic response has been altered by the genetic
modification; and
     Any other information relevant to the safety and
nutritional assessment of the bioengineered food.
    In 2001, FDA contacted 5 firms that had made 1 or more
biotechnology consultation submissions under the 1996 procedures. FDA
asked each of these firms for an estimate of the hourly burden to
prepare a submission under the voluntary biotechnology consultation
process. Three of these firms subsequently provided the requested
information. Based on this information, FDA estimated that the average
time to prepare a submission for final consultation under the 1996
procedures is 150 hours (69 FR 68379 at 68381). The availability of the
form, and the opportunity to provide the information in electronic
format, could reduce this estimate. However, as a conservative approach
for the purpose of this analysis, FDA is assuming that the availability
of the form and the opportunity to submit the information in electronic
format will have no effect on the average time to prepare a submission
for final consultation under the 1996 procedures.

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-3028 Filed 2-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33923]
[FR Doc No: E9-16540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 265

[Docket No. FRA-2008-0117, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AB98

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Railroad Programs;
Removal

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is removing 49 CFR part 265 because the relevant statutory
authority for the regulation found in the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 has expired. FRA expects that removal of
part 265 will reduce the administrative burden to government and
industry, reduce government printing costs, and provide a more concise
and useful Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES: The rule becomes effective August 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Martin, Attorney Advisor, Office
of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mail Stop 10,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Calvin Gibson, Director, Office of Civil
Rights, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 3rd Floor West, Washington,
DC 20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    49 CFR part 265 effectuated sections 905 and 906 of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (``Act''), Public Law
94-210, 90 Stat. 31, 148-150 (February 5, 1976), which set forth the
nondiscrimination and minority business enterprise provisions of that
Act. However, Congress repealed sections 905 and 906 in the re-
enactment of the Department of Transportation Act, Public Law 97-449,
Sec. 7(b), 96 Stat. 2443 (January 12, 1983). Since Congress has not
acted to renew or extend a minority business enterprise program at FRA
and since the authorizing sections have been repealed, FRA has
determined that Part 265 can and should be removed from Title 49.
    DOT's current nondiscrimination provisions that recipients of FRA
funding are still subject to are at 49 CFR parts 21 and 27 and 49
U.S.C. 306, which prohibit discrimination in several railroad financial
assistance programs implemented by the FRA.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. FRA has determined that
there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior
proposal and opportunity for comment because the actions taken in this
final rule represent technical corrections to the regulations and do
not involve substantive Agency action.

II. Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FRA has determined that this rulemaking action is not significant
within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or the U.S. Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. It simply repeals
an outdated regulation that does not have a statutory foundation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 5 U.S.C.
601-612, requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small
entities. FRA certifies that the repeal of 49 CFR part 265 will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking contains no reporting requirements that are subject
to OMB approval under 5 CFR part 1320, pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism Implications

    FRA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, issued on August 4, 1999,
which directs Federal agencies to exercise great care in establishing
policies that have federalism implications. See 64 FR 43255. This rule
mandating the removal of 49 CFR part 265 will not have a substantial
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. This rule will not
have federalism implications that impose any direct compliance costs on
State and local governments. In fact, this rule removes a regulation
based a long ago repealed statute, which may have had, but no longer
has federalism implications because of its repeal.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this regulation in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (64 FR 28545, May
26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders,
and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that the
removal of this regulation is not a major FRA action, and it will have
no environmental impact.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' This final rule would
not result in the expenditure of any funds, thus preparation of such a
statement is not required.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 265

    Civil rights, Railroads, Sex discrimination.

III. The Final Rule

0
Under the Department of Transportation Act, Public Law 97-449, Sec.
7(b), 96 Stat. 2443 (January 12, 1983), and as discussed in the
preamble, amend 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter II by removing part 265.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2009.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E9-16540 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50962-50964]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20210]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72884; File No. SR-CME-2014-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 802.H

August 20, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on August 7, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (``CME'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed
the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-

4(f)(4)(ii) \4\ thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME is filing a proposed rule change that is limited to its
business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the
proposed rule change contains certain clarifying amendments to CME Rule
802.H.

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

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

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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and currently offers clearing
services for many different futures and swaps products. With this
filing, CME proposes to make rule changes that apply to CME's Base
Guaranty Fund. More specifically, the proposed changes would make
clarifying amendments to current CME Rule 802.H (Base Cooling Off
Period and Multiple Defaults).
    CME previously amended CME Rule 802 on June 19, 2012 to establish a
fixed $100 million amount for CME's contribution to the financial
safeguards package associated with its Base Guaranty Fund (``Base CME
Contribution''). That amendment inadvertently excluded the express
language limiting CME's corporate contribution to the Base financial
safeguards package during the Base Cooling-Off Period, similar to CME's
structure for the CDS and IRS guaranty funds, which limit CME's
obligation during the respective cooling off periods applicable to CDS
and IRS. CME is now proposing to add the clarifying language into Rule
802.H to harmonize the relevant rule text across the Base, IRS and CDS
product classes and to provide clarity to the marketplace regarding
CME's obligation to replenish its Base CME Contribution during a Base
Cooling-Off Period.
    The proposed rule change that is described in this filing is
limited to CME's Base Guaranty Fund and therefore is limited to its
business as a derivatives clearing organization clearing products under
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') and does not materially impact CME's security-based swap
clearing business in any way. The proposed changes would become
effective immediately but would be operationalized on August 20, 2014.
CME notes that it has also submitted the proposed rule change that is
the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in CME
Submission 14-277.
    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act.\5\ The proposed changes would amend rule text that applies to
CME's Base Guaranty Fund to harmonize the relevant rule text across
CME's Base, IRS and CDS product classes. The proposed changes would
provide clarity to the marketplace regarding CME's obligation to
replenish its Base CME Contribution during a Base Cooling-Off Period.
Because the proposed amendments would clarify the operation of CME's
rules and default management procedures in connection with its Base
Guaranty Fund, the changes should therefore be seen to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which
are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed changes are limited to CME's Base
Guaranty Fund, which means the proposed changes are limited in their
effect to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
CFTC. As such, the proposed CME changes are limited to CME's activities
as a DCO clearing swaps that are not security-based swaps; CME notes
that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the
Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies
underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market transparency for
over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public
interest.
    Because the proposed changes are limited in their effect to CME's
Base Guaranty Fund, the proposed changes are properly classified as
effecting a change in an existing service of CME that:
    (a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect
to products that are not securities, including futures that are not
security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed
swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and
    (b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to
securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.
    As such, the changes are therefore consistent with the requirements
of Section 17A of the Exchange Act \7\ and are properly filed under
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \9\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes
simply provide clarity to the marketplace regarding CME's obligation to
replenish its Base CME Contribution during a Base Cooling-Off Period.
Further, the changes are limited to CME's Base Guaranty Fund and, as
such, do not affect the security-based swap clearing activities of CME
in any way and therefore do not impose any burden on competition that
is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-CME-2014-32 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-CME-2014-32. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's Web
site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    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-CME-2014-32
and should be submitted on or before September 16, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20210 Filed 8-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8076-8083]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02499]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0600; FRL-9776-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP);
Emergency Orders

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing disapproval of revisions to the SIP for the
State of Texas that relate to Emergency Orders. This includes portions
of SIP revisions that relate to Emergency Orders that were submitted by
Texas on August 31, 1993; December 10, 1998; February 1, 2006; and July
17, 2006. EPA is proposing disapproval of these revisions because these
regulations do not meet the requirement of the Clean Air Act (the
``Act'' or ``CAA''), EPA regulations, and applicable policy and
guidance. EPA is proposing this action under section 110 and parts C
and D of Title I of the Act. EPA is returning the non-air portions of
the aforementioned SIP submittals to the State because these provisions
cannot be included in the SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2006-0600 by one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Email: Ms. Ashley Mohr at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Fax: Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), at fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Mail: Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section (6PD-R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
    (5) Hand or Courier Delivery: Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2006-0600. 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 whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means that EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to 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, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of
Information Act Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese
at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an appointment. If possible, please make the
appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There
will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On
the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception
area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittals, which are part of the EPA docket, are also
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency during official
business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ), Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin,
Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever any
reference to ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What is EPA's evaluation of the Texas Emergency Orders Program?
    A. Does the Emergency Orders Program meet the requirements for
projects that are subject to New Source Review (NSR)?
    1. Summary of the Federal Program for Major NSR
    2. What is EPA's evaluation?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On August 31, 1993, TCEQ submitted its regulations for Emergency
Orders. Revisions to these regulations were submitted on December 10,
1998; February 1, 2006; and July 17, 2006. The pending SIP revisions
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. Additional information is
included in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action, which
is in the docket.

                       Table 1--Summary of Pending SIP Submittals Addressed in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Date
                                                Date         Date      effective   Sections related to emergency
       Description of SIP submittal          submitted    adopted by    as State               orders
                                               to EPA       State         rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Recodification of Chapter 116....    8/31/1993    8/16/1993    9/13/1993  Chapter 116: Submittal of
                                                                                sections 116.410 through
                                                                                116.418.
Emergency and Temporary Orders............   12/10/1998   11/18/1998   12/10/1998  Chapter 35: Submittal of
                                                                                sections 35.1-35.3, 35.11-
                                                                                35.13, 35.21-35-30, and
                                                                                35.801-35.809
                                                                                Chapter 116: Revisions to
                                                                                section 116.410; Repeal of
                                                                                sections 116.411-116.418,
                                                                                which were replaced by
                                                                                sections 35.802-35.809
Federal New Source Review Permits Rules...     2/1/2006    1/11/2006     2/1/2006  Chapter 116: Recodification
                                                                                of Sec.   116.410 to Sec.
                                                                                116.1200.
Revision to Provisions for Emergency          7/17/2006    6/28/2006    7/19/2006  Chapter 35: Revisions to
 Orders.                                                                            sections 35.801, 35.802,
                                                                                35.804, 35.805, 35,807, and
                                                                                35.808.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table 2--Summary of the Individual Revisions to Each Section Evaluated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Date                   Effective
              Section--title                 submitted    Adopted by    as State              Comments
                                               to EPA       State         rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   30 TAC Chapter 35--Emergency and Temporary Orders and Permits; Temporary Suspension or Amendment of Permits
                                                   Conditions
================================================================================================================
                              Subchapter A--Purpose, Applicability, and Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 35.1--Purpose.....................   12/10/1998   11/18/1998   12/10/1998  Initial adoption.
Section 35.2--Applicability...............   12/10/1998   11/18/1998   12/10/1998  Initial adoption.
Section 35.3--Definitions.................   12/10/1998   11/18/1998   12/10/1998  Initial adoption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Subchapter B--Authority of the Executive Director
================================================================================================================
Section 35.11--Purpose and Applicability........................................................................
Section 35.12--Authority of the Executive Director..............................................................
Section 35.13--Eligibility of the Executive Director............................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Subchapter C--General Provisions
================================================================================================================
Section 35.21--Action by the Commission or Executive Director...................................................
Section 35.22--Term and Renewal of Orders.......................................................................
Sec.   35.23--Effect of Orders..................................................................................
Section 35.24--Application for Emergency or Temporary Orders....................................................
Section 35.25--Notice and Opportunity for Hearing...............................................................
Section 35.26--Contents of Emergency or Temporary Orders........................................................
Section 35.27--Hearing Required.................................................................................
Section 35.28--Hearing Requests.................................................................................
Sec.   35.29--Procedures for a Hearing..........................................................................
Section 35.30--Application Fees.................................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Subchapter K--Air Orders \1\
================================================================================================================
Section 35.801--Emergency Orders Because of Catastrophe.........................................................

Sec.  Sec.   35.802--Application for an Emergency Order.........................................................

Section 35.803--Public Notification.............................................................................

Section 35.804--Issuance of an Emergency Order..................................................................

Section 35.805--Contents of an Emergency Order..................................................................

Section 35.806--Requirement to Apply for a Permit or Modification...............................................

Section 35.807--Affirmation of an Emergency Order...............................................................

Section 35.808--Modification of an Emergency Order..............................................................

Section 35.809--Setting Aside an Emergency Order................................................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          30 TAC Chapter 116--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 116.1200--Applicability...........    8/31/1993    8/16/1993    9/13/1993  Initial adoption as section
                                                                                116.410.
                                             12/10/1998   11/18/1998   12/10/1998  Revised introductory
                                                                                paragraph.
                                               2/1/2006    1/11/2006     2/1/2006  Redesignated to section
                                                                                116.1200.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the regulations governing Emergency Orders are found in
30 TAC Chapter 35--Emergency and Temporary Orders and Permits;
Temporary Suspension or Amendment of Permit Conditions. These
regulations provide the process by which the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) may issue a Temporary Order, Emergency
Order, Mandatory Order, Permissive Order, and Prohibitory Order and
include provisions that apply to both air orders and non-air orders. As
part of this action, we are reviewing only those portions that are
applicable to the issuance of air Emergency Orders. Under the CAA, SIPs
can only include provisions addressing criteria pollutants and their
precursors, so the portions of the Texas submittals related to non-air
orders cannot be included in the SIP. Therefore, EPA is returning the
non-air portions of the aforementioned submittals to the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On August 18, 1993, sections 116.411 through 116.418 were
adopted under Chapter 116, Subchapter E--Emergency Orders. On
November 18, 1998, these regulations were replaced with sections
35.802 through 35.809 and placed in Chapter 35, Subchapter K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions in 30 TAC Chapter 35, the TCEQ may issue an
Emergency Order under its air quality program which authorizes
immediate action for the addition, replacement, or repair of
facilities, control equipment, or the repair or replacement of roads,
bridges, and other infrastructure whenever a catastrophe necessitates
such construction and emissions otherwise precluded under the Texas
Clean Air Act. See 30 TAC 35.801. Additional information on these
regulations, and the specific provisions included in the regulations,
is provided in TSD for this action.
    Today, EPA proposes to disapprove the regulations identified in
Table 2 above, except for provisions that do not relate to the air
quality requirements of the Act. EPA is returning the following non-air
portions of the submitted rules to the State: 30 TAC 35.13; 35.24(b)
and (e)(6)-(7); and 35.25(e)(1)-(8) and (11)-(15). While we are
proposing disapproval of the Emergency Orders Program, EPA does
recognize the merits of such a state-only Program that allows for
application review and order issuance to authorize proposed actions
following catastrophes that often necessitate immediate action by
owners and operators to minimize additional downstream impacts
resulting from the catastrophe. Texas's Emergency Orders Program does
allow for coordination between the source and the TCEQ to facilitate
expedited review while maintaining a review process, as described in
the June 17, 2006 SIP submittal. Other State and local agencies operate
programs similar to the Emergency Orders program. In these cases, the
regulations containing the provisions related to those programs are
located within the states' air quality permitting regulations, not in
the SIP. EPA may exercise its enforcement discretion on a case-by-case
basis to evaluate the owner or operator's proposed action in response
to a catastrophe and utilizes enforcement discretion to allow for
appropriate immediate actions to minimize impacts and restore the
sources to full operation.

II. What is EPA's evaluation of the Texas Emergency Orders Program?

A. Does the Emergency Orders Program meet the requirements for projects
that are subject to New Source Review (NSR)?

    The Emergency Orders Program could be used to authorize
construction via the issuance of an Order prior to a source submitting
an application for a NSR preconstruction permit. The issued Emergency
Order is an interim authorization for the emissions of air contaminants
that are associated with the construction or modification of any source
or facility in response to a catastrophe, as defined in 30 TAC 35.801.
Under the Emergency Orders Program, an owner or operator can apply for
an Emergency Order that would ``authorize immediate action for the
addition, replacement, or repair of facilities or control equipment, or
the repair or replacement of roads, bridges, or other infrastructure,
and authorizing associated emissions of air contaminants.'' See 30 TAC
35.801.

1. Summary of the Federal Program for Major NSR
    The requirements for Major NSR are in Title I, Parts C and D of the
CAA and in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 and apply to the construction and
modification of major stationary sources. The Major NSR requirements
apply to projects that would be new major stationary sources and
projects that would be major modifications under the requirements for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) under 40 CFR 51.166 and
the requirements for Nonattainment Area New Source Review (NNSR) under
40 CFR 51.165.
    The requirements for Major NSR apply to the construction or
modification of stationary sources which emit, or have the potential to
emit a regulated NSR pollutant at greater than 100 tons per year for
most stationary sources. See CAA Sec.  302(j).\2\ Major NSR is required
under two programs as described below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In certain nonattainment areas, the CAA specifies lower
thresholds based upon the degree of nonattainment. See CAA at
Sec. Sec.  182(c), (d), and (d); 187(c)(1); and 189(b)(3). See 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv). Also, in a PSD area, under the CAA Sec.
169(1), a major stationary source is either 100 tons per year or
more if the source belongs to a category identified in the
definition, otherwise it is major if it emits or has the potential
to emit 250 tons per year or more. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The requirements for
PSD are under the CAA Title I, Part C and under 40 CFR 51.166. PSD
applies to the construction and modification of major stationary
sources for the emissions of any pollutant for which the region (or
portion thereof) is designated attainment or unclassifiable. See CAA at
Sec.  161 and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(i). Requirements of the PSD
Permitting Program include the following:
     The PSD permit must be issued prior to commencement of
construction and set forth emission limitations which conform to the
CAA. CAA Sec.  165(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7).
     The proposed permit has been subject to review in
accordance with CAA requirements and the regulations promulgated under
CAA, and the permit has been subject to public hearing and opportunity
for interested persons to submit comments. CAA Sec.  165(a)(2) and 40
CFR 51.166(a)(7) & (q).
     The emissions from the construction or operation of the
source will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of the
following: (1) Maximum allowable increase or maximum allowable
concentration for any pollutant in any area in which PSD applies; (2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard; and (3) Any other applicable
emission standard or standard of performance under the Act. CAA Sec.
165(a)(3) and 40 CFR 51.166(c).
     The source is subject to best available control technology
and the permitted emissions represent that technology. CAA Sec.
165(a)(4) and 51.166(j).
     The requirements for protection of Class I areas have been
met by the source. CAA Sec.  165(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.166(p).
     There has been an analysis of the air quality impacts
projected to occur as the result of growth associated with the source.
CAA Sec.  165(a)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(o).
     Monitoring has been conducted, as necessary, to determine
the effect which emissions from any such facility may have, or is
having, on air quality in any area which may be affected by emissions
from such source. CAA Sec.  165(a)(7) and 40 CFR 51.166(m).
     Specific requirements applicable to source proposed to be
located in Class III areas have been met by the source. CAA Sec.
165(a)(8).
    Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR). The requirements for NNSR
are under the CAA Title I, Part D and under 40 CFR 51.165. NNSR applies
to the construction and modification of major stationary sources for
the emissions of any pollutant for which the region (or portion
thereof) is designated nonattainment. See CAA at Sec.  172(c)(5) and 40
CFR 51.165(a)(2)(i). Requirements of the NNSR Program include the
following:
     Emission increases must be offset by reductions that are
greater than the increase. CAA Sec.  173(a)(1).
     The proposed source is required to comply with lowest
achievable emission rate. CAA Sec.  173(a)(2).
     The owner or operator must demonstrate that all major
stationary sources owned by such person (or entity) are in compliance,
or on a schedule for compliance, with all applicable emission
limitations and standards under the Act. CAA Sec.  173(a)(3).
     EPA has not determined that the State is not adequately
implementing the SIP for the nonattainment area in which the proposed
source is to be constructed or modified. CAA Sec.  173(a)(4).
     An analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production
processes, and environmental control techniques for such proposed
source demonstrates that benefits of the proposed source significantly
outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its
location, construction, or modification. CAA Sec.  173(a)(5).
    The PSD and NNSR Programs each require a new major stationary
source or major modification to obtain a preconstruction permit prior
to commencing construction. For PSD see CAA at Sec.  165(a)(1) and 40
CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iii). For NNSR see CAA Sec.  172(c)(5) and 40 CFR
51.165(a)(2)(i)-(iii). Accordingly, a new or modified major stationary
source or major modification may not be constructed without a permit
that meets the requirements of the applicable Major NSR Program.
2. What is EPA's evaluation?
    As discussed in detail in the TSD for this action, in the July 17,
2006 SIP submittal TCEQ characterizes its Emergency Orders Program as a
program which ``contemplate(s) and call(s) for a comprehensive
technical review.'' However, notwithstanding the fact that TCEQ states
that the ``comprehensive review'' for an Emergency Order is at least as
comprehensive as the TCEQ's review of permit applications, the
Emergency Orders Program does not meet all the requirements applicable
to NSR. Specifically, the issuance of Emergency Orders to projects that
are subject to Major NSR fail to meet the requirements of the Clean Air
Act and the implementing regulations as follows:
     The Emergency Orders Program does not satisfy the public
participation required for NSR at the time the Emergency Order is
issued. Public participation requirements that are applicable to
projects that are subject to Major NSR are not met prior to the
issuance of the Emergency Order, which would authorize the construction
of such projects. Instead, the applicable public participation for
Major NSR projects will take place after the issuance of the Emergency
Order when the applicant submits their application for a Major NSR
permit. The source has 60 days following the issuance of the Emergency
Order to submit the permit application. See 30 TAC 35.806. Meanwhile,
the applicant is authorized by the Emergency Order to begin
construction of the Major NSR project prior to permit application
submission and permit issuance. Consequently, the public is not
afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project
(as required under the CAA and implementing regulations) until after
construction has begun; thus the public has not been provided
meaningful opportunity to participate prior to commencement of
construction of the Major NSR project. See 40 CFR 51.161

and 51.166(q). It is important to note, that while we are evaluating
the Emergency Orders Program against the Major NSR requirements, the
Minor NSR Program also requires public participation as part of the
construction permitting process.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Minor NSR requirements for public participation are
found at 40 CFR 51.161, and require prior to construction or
modification the availability for public inspection of information
regarding the construction (including the State's analysis of the
effect on air quality), a 30-day period for submittal of public
comment, and a notice by prominent advertisement in the area
affected. EPA recognizes a state's ability to tailor the scope of
its Minor NSR program as necessary to achieve and maintain the
NAAQS. See 77 FR 74140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Emergency Orders Program does not meet the requirement
that a NSR permit be issued prior to the commencement of construction
of a Major Source. The CAA contemplates a Major NSR permit that is
issued as a final authorization that certifies that the Major NSR
permit meets all the requirements of PSD and NNSR. See CAA at section
165(a) and 173(a) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(i) through (ii), and
51.166(a)(7)(i) through (v). In contrast, the Emergency Order is an
interim authorization for immediate action, including construction,
following a catastrophe and is not a final issued Major NSR permit.
Notwithstanding the fact that the TCEQ conducts a review of Emergency
Order applications, which TCEQ characterized as being equivalent to the
technical review of a permit, as discussed above, the technical review
does not include all required preconstruction review elements and the
issued order is an interim authorization and not a final issued Major
NSR permit. The Emergency Orders Program does require that a source
submit an application for any necessary air permits, including Major
NSR permits, within 60 days following the issuance of an Emergency
Order. See 30 TAC 35.806. These permits are required to be applied for
and issued in accordance with the applicable New Source Review
requirements. However, the New Source Review permitting would occur
following the commencement of construction at the source. Therefore,
the Emergency Orders Program does not meet the CAA requirement that the
Major NSR permit be issued prior to a source commencing construction.
For PSD see CAA at Sec.  165(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iii). For
NNSR see CAA Sec.  172(c)(5) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(i)-(iii).
    Based on our review of the Emergency Orders Program, which includes
authorizations of NSR actions, and comparison with the applicable
requirements for Major NSR, we are proposing to disapprove the Program
on the basis that it does not meet all applicable requirements. While
we are proposing disapproval of the Emergency Orders Program, EPA would
like to recognize the merits of having a state-only Program that allows
for application review and order issuance to authorize proposed actions
following catastrophes that often necessitate immediate action by
owners and operators to minimize additional downstream impacts
resulting from the catastrophe. Texas's Emergency Orders Program does
allow for coordination between the source and the TCEQ to facilitate
expedited review while maintaining a review process, as described in
the June 17, 2006 SIP submittal.
    Other State and local agencies operate programs similar to the
Emergency Orders Program to allow for the authorization of owners and
operators to take immediate actions, including construction, following
catastrophes that include natural disasters, such as hurricanes,
floods, and earthquakes, and plant fires or explosions. In these cases,
the regulations containing the provisions related to the program
operated by the State or local agency are located within the states'
air quality permitting regulations, not in the SIP, and EPA may
exercise enforcement discretion on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the
owner or operators' proposed actions in response to catastrophe. For
example, in 2005, the EPA Region 6 office utilized enforcement
discretion to allow facilities impacted by Hurricane Rita to take
appropriate immediate actions to bring the sources back up to full
operation and minimize additional impacts resulting from the
catastrophe. In this case, EPA issued Administrative Compliance Orders
after conducting case-by-case review of the proposed actions at a
particular facility.4 5 More recently, EPA has exercised
enforcement discretion in response to the impacts caused by Hurricane
Sandy in both Regions 1 and 2. Following this natural disaster, EPA
issued a No Action Assurance to allow loading and unloading of fuel at
bulk gasoline and marine loading terminals and associated truck loading
racks in New York and New Jersey without the required vapor recovery/
combustion if the facility was not equipped with this control equipment
or the equipment had been damaged by Sandy.\6\ EPA exercised its
enforcement discretion by issuing a No Action Assurance to address
severe fuel shortages resulting from Hurricane Sandy's impacts. In each
of the examples here, and in fact in any disaster situation, EPA has
acted very quickly to gather facts and take appropriate action, so that
critical systems are not impeded from operating as a result of the
catastrophe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Administrative Compliance Order dated September 28, 2005
issued by the EPA Region 6 Compliance Assurance and Enforcement
Division to Georgia Pacific for the Port Hudson facility.
    \5\ Administrative Compliance Order dated November 17, 2005
issued by the EPA Region 6 Compliance Assurance and Enforcement
Division to the Municipality of Chambers County.
    \6\ No Action Assurance dated November 2, 2012 issued by the EPA
Assistant Administrator to the states of New York and New Jersey.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/air/documents/policies/mobile/naa-vaporrecovery.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are proposing disapproval of the Emergency Orders Program
on the basis that the Program does not meet the necessary federal
requirements for approval into the Texas SIP, this proposed action will
not impact how the TCEQ has been operating the Program in response to
catastrophes since the Program's original adoption into the State's
regulations in August 1993. EPA will continue to exercise enforcement
discretion on a case-by-case basis for actions proposed by sources in
Texas in response to catastrophes, while the TCEQ continues to rely
upon the technical review process provided by the Emergency Orders
Program to ensure that the proposed actions are consistent with the
applicable State requirements and will not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards or
violate applicable portions of the control strategy.

III. Proposed Action

    Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, and for the reasons stated
above, EPA proposes to disapprove the following revisions to the Texas
SIP.
     New 30 TAC 35.1--Purpose--submitted December 10, 1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.2--Applicability--submitted December 10,
1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.3--Definitions--submitted December 10, 1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.11--Purpose and Applicability--submitted
December 10, 1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.12--Authority of the Executive Director--
submitted December 10, 1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.21--Action by the Commission or Executive
Director--submitted December 10, 1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.22--Term and Renewal of Orders--submitted
December 10, 1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.23--Effect of Orders--submitted December 10,
1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.24--Application for Emergency or Temporary
Orders--

submitted December 10, 1998. No action is proposed on subsection (b)
and paragraphs (e)(6)-(7) which are outside the scope of the SIP.
     New 30 TAC 35.25--Notice and Opportunity for Hearing--
submitted December 10, 1998. No action is proposed on paragraphs
(e)(1)-(8) and (11)-(15) which are outside the scope of the SIP.
     New 30 TAC 35.26--Contents of Emergency or Temporary
Order--submitted December 10, 1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.27--Hearing Required--submitted December 10,
1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.28--Hearing Requests--submitted December 10,
1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.29--Procedures for a Hearing--submitted
December 10, 1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.30--Application Fees--submitted December 10,
1998.
     New 30 TAC 35.801--Emergency Orders Because of a
Catastrophe--submitted December 10, 1998; revision submitted July 17,
2006.
     New 30 TAC 35.802--Applications for an Emergency Order--
submitted August 31, 1993 (as 30 TAC 116.411); revision submitted
December 10, 1998 (as redesignated to 30 TAC 35.802); revision
submitted July 17, 2006.
     New 30 TAC 35.803--Public Notification--submitted August
31, 1993 (as 30 TAC 116.412); and revision submitted December 10, 1998
(as redesignated to 30 TAC 35.803).
     New 30 TAC 35.804--Issuance of an Emergency Order--
submitted December 10, 1998; revision submitted July 17, 2006.
     New 30 TAC 35.805--Contents of an Emergency Order--
submitted August 31, 1993 (as 30 TAC 116.415); revision submitted
December 10, 1998 (as redesignated to 30 TAC 35.805); revision
submitted July 17, 2006.
     New 30 TAC 35.806--Requirement to Apply for a Permit or
Modification--submitted August 31, 1993 (as 30 TAC 116.416); revision
submitted December 10, 1998 (as redesignated to 30 TAC 35.806).
     New 30 TAC 35.807--Affirmation of an Emergency Order--
submitted August 31, 1993 (as 30 TAC 116.414); revision submitted
December 10, 1998 (as redesignated to 30 TAC 35.807); revision
submitted July 17, 2006.
     New 30 TAC 35.808--Modification of an Emergency Order--
submitted August 31, 1993 (as 30 TAC 116.417); revision submitted
December 10, 1998 (as redesignated to 30 TAC 35.808); revision
submitted July 17, 2006.
     New 30 TAC 35.809--Setting Aside an Emergency Order--
submitted August 31, 1993 (as 30 TAC 116.418); revision submitted
December 10, 1998 (as redesignated to 30 TAC 35.809).
     New 30 TAC 116.1200--Applicability--submitted August 31,
1993 (as 30 TAC 116.411); revisions submitted December 10, 1998;
revision submitted February 1, 2006 (as redesignated to 30 TAC
116.1200).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national

government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 28, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-02499 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 48629-48631]
[DOCID:fr24au07-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Bradwood Landing LNG Terminal and Pipeline
Project

August 17, 2007.

Bradwood Landing LLC (Docket No. CP06-365-000); NorthernStar Energy LLC
(Docket Nos. CP06-366-000, CP06-376-000, and CP06-377-000)

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal proposed by
Bradwood Landing LLC and the associated natural gas sendout pipeline
facilities proposed by NorthernStar Energy LLC in the above-referenced
dockets. The LNG import terminal would be located at Bradwood, about 38
miles up the Columbia River from its mouth, in Clatsop County, Oregon,
and the sendout pipeline would be located in Clatsop and Columbia
Counties, Oregon, and Cowlitz County, Washington.
    The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) are federal cooperating agencies for
the development of this EIS. A federal cooperating agency has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved with the proposal and is involved in the
NEPA analysis.
    The COE is responsible for issuing permits under section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbor Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Coast
Guard is responsible for the safety and security of port areas and
navigable waterways, and

would issue a Letter of Recommendation indicating if the Columbia River
waterway to the proposed LNG terminal is suitable for LNG marine
traffic. The DOT is responsible for enforcing safety regulations and
standards for the LNG terminal and the design and operation of the
natural gas sendout pipeline.
    The FERC is the lead federal agency for compliance with the NEPA,
and for authorization of the Project under sections 3 and 7 of the
Natural Gas Act. The Commission will use the EIS to consider the
environmental impacts that would result if it decides to authorize the
Project. The cooperating agencies and the FERC staff conclude that the
proposed Project, with the appropriate mitigation measures as
recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact.
    The general purpose of the proposed Project is to provide a new
source of natural gas to the Pacific Northwest through the importation
of LNG. LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to about -260 degrees
Fahrenheit, reducing its volume about 600 times from a gas to a liquid,
allowing for its transport over long distances across oceans in
specially designed ships from its point of origin in foreign countries
with abundant natural gas reserves. At the import terminal at Bradwood,
the LNG would be off-loaded from the LNG transport ships, stored as a
liquid, vaporized back into natural gas, and sent out via the
associated pipeline to the existing interstate natural gas pipeline
network. The Bradwood Landing LNG import terminal would have a peak
sendout capacity of about 1.3 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) of
natural gas.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts from
the construction and operation of the following facilities proposed by
Bradwood Landing LLC:
     A dredged LNG ship maneuvering area off of the Columbia
River navigation channel;
     A single ship berth capable of receiving LNG ships with
cargo capacities ranging from 100,000 to 200,000 cubic meters (m\3\);
     A set of four 16-inch-diameter LNG unloading arms,
including two liquid unloading arms, one hybrid arm, and a vapor return
arm on the jetty, and a 1,240-foot-long, 32-inch-diameter cryogenic LNG
transfer pipeline and 6-inch-diameter LNG recirculation pipeline
extending from the berth to the LNG storage tanks;
     Two insulated LNG storage tanks, each with a useable
volume of over 1 million barrels, or 160,000 m\3\;
     A vapor management system to handle the boil-off gas (BOG)
that occurs during the unloading process, including vapor return
blowers and knockout drum on the jetty, vapor handling pipework, two
BOG compressors, and a BOG condenser;
     An LNG sendout system, consisting of six submerged in-tank
LNG discharge pumps (three in each storage tank) and five sendout
pumps;
     Seven submerged combustion vaporizers, of which six would
normally operate and one would be a back-up, to re-gasify the LNG and
provide natural gas through a metering station to the inlet valve of
the sendout pipeline;
     Utilities, including a 1.5-mile-long 115-kilovolt power
line and switchyard, and an 800-kilowatt emergency diesel-fueled
generator;
     Support buildings, including a warehouse/administrative
building, control building, switch rooms, compressor building, and
gatehouse/security building; and
     A fire protection and detection system, including a
firewater pumphouse, and security system including fencing.
    The natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by NorthernStar Energy
LLC addressed in the draft EIS include:
     A 36.3-mile-long, underground, high-pressure welded steel
sendout pipeline consisting of approximately 18.9 miles of 36-inch-
diameter pipeline in Clatsop and Columbia Counties, Oregon and 17.4
miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Columbia County, Oregon and
Cowlitz County, Washington;
     Five meter stations, including at the LNG terminal, the
Georgia-Pacific Wauna paper mill delivery point, the interconnection
with the Northwest Natural Gas Company intrastate pipeline system, the
Portland General Electric Company Beaver Power Plant delivery point,
and interconnection with Williams Northwest Pipeline Company interstate
pipeline system; and
     at least five mainline block valves, two pig \1\
launchers, and two pig receivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' in an internal devise used to dry, clean, and
inspect a pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment Procedures

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS is encouraged to do
so. To ensure consideration prior to the production of a final EIS, it
is important that your comments be received before December 24, 2007.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of any comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the FERC's Internet Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the eFiling link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can submit comments, you will need to create a
free account by clicking on ``Sign-up'' under ``New User.'' You will be
asked to select the type of submission you are making. This type of
submission is considered a ``Comment on Filing.'' Comments submitted
electronically must be submitted by December 24, 2007.
    If you wish to mail comments on the draft EIS, please mail your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
December 24, 2007. Please carefully follow the instructions below to
ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A , Washington, DC 20426.
     Reference Docket No. CP06-365-000 et al. on the original
and both copies; and
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3, PJ11.3.
    After comments on the draft EIS are reviewed, any significant new
issues are investigated, and modifications are made to the text, a
final EIS will be published and distributed. The final EIS will contain
the staff responses to timely comments received on the draft EIS.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission and the cooperating
agencies but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Anyone may intervene
in this proceeding based on this draft EIS. You must file your request
to intervene as specified above.\2\ You do not need intervenor status
to have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Interventions may also filed electronically via the Internet
in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing comments
electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A limited number of copies of the draft EIS are available from the
Public Reference Room identified above. In addition, the draft EIS has
been mailed to affected landowners; various federal,

state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental
and public interest groups; Indian tribes and Native American
organizations with an interest in the project area; local libraries and
newspapers; intervenors; and other individuals that expressed an
interest in the proposed Project.
    Additional information about the proposed Project is available from
the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208--FERC or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). To access information

via the FERC Web site click on the ``eLibrary'' link then click on
``General Search'' and enter the docket number (CP06-365) excluding the
last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected
an appropriate date range. The ``eLibrary'' link provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with ``eLibrary'', please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. 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
these documents. To learn more about eSubscription and to sign-up for
this service please go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16751 Filed 8-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P