[Federal Register: December 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 74500-74501]
[DOCID:fr12de06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-87-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2006, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, Tenth Revised Sheet No. 43, with a
proposed effective date of January 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21080 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61352-61353]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2581-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, LLC
submits tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2): CEGT LLC--Fuel Tracker Filing,
to be effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5051
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 05, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2582-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company
    Description: Viking Gas Transmission Company submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Semi Annual FLRP--Fall 2011 to be effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 05, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2583-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: 2011 Transporter's Use Gas Annual Adjustment to be effective
11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5053
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 05, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2584-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: Storage Update Filing to be effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 05, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2585-000.
    Applicants: Venice Gathering System, LLC.
    Description: Venice Gathering System, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: Section 31, Off-System Capacity to be effective 10/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 05, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2586-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Service Agreement--NJR to be effective 9/
24/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5097
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 05, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2587-000.
    Applicants: USG Pipeline Company.
    Description: USG Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: Negotiated Rate filing with CDNAG to be effective 10/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 05, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2589-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Create PAL Service to be effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110926-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2590-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP submits tariff filing per
154.203: DCP--2011 Revenue Crediting Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 09/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110926-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR Sec.  385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may
be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2486-001.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): Amendment to ConEd 2011-09-01 Releases to be effective
9/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110926-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: September 27, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25440 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58315-58316]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical
Pharmacology; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science
and Clinical Pharmacology.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 31, 2013, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, Building 31, the Great Room, White
Oak Conference Center (Rm. 1503), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due
to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed
at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the
heading ``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA
White Oak Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus
must enter through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCcommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: There will be two topics presented to the committee for
their discussion and consideration. During the first session, the
Office of New Drug Quality Assessment will lead a discussion on the
challenges and opportunities of continuous manufacturing for
pharmaceutical products. Speakers from the Agency, academia, and
industry will provide their thoughts on scientific and regulatory
challenges for implementing continuous processes for drug substance and
drug product manufacturing.
    During the second session, the committee will receive an
informational only update from the Office of Generic Drugs on what
Agency actions/changes have taken place following previous discussions
with the committee pertaining to quality and bioequivalence concerns
for narrow therapeutic index drug products. This will be an awareness
topic and there will not be formal committee discussion or
recommendation.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee

meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site
after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the
appropriate advisory committee meeting link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
October 16, 2013. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 10:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before October 7, 2013. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by October 8, 2013.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 16, 2013.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-23022 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 20945-20946]
[DOCID:fr06my09-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0241; FRL-8410-4]

Pesticide Product Registration Approval

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces Agency approval of an application to
register the pesticide product Bull Run Japanese and Oriental Beetle
Trap containing an active ingredient not included in any previously
registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(5) of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as
amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Cole, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0241. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved
label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific
information used to support registration, except for material
specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are also available for
public inspection. Requests for data must be made in accordance with
the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed
to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Such requests should: Identify the
product name and registration number and specify the data or
information desired.
    A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this
registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Did EPA Approve the Application?

    The Agency approved the application after considering all required
data on risks associated with the proposed use of Z-7-Tetradec-2-one,
and information on social, economic, and environmental benefits to be
derived from use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the nature of
the chemical and its pattern of use, application methods and rates, and
level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these reviews, the
Agency was able to make basic health and safety determinations which
show that use of Z-7-Tetradec-2-one in accordance with widespread and
commonly recognized practice, will not generally cause unreasonable
adverse effects to the environment.

III. Approved Application

    EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal Register of September
5, 2008 (73 FR 51816) (FRL-8353-5), which announced that Bull Run
Scientific, VBT, 7400 Beaufont Springs Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA
23225-5519, had submitted an application to register the pesticide
product, Bull Run Japanese and Oriental Beetle Trap, arthropod
pheromone (EPA File Symbol 84565-R), containing attractants and
pheromones. This product was not previously registered.
    The application was approved on March 30, 2009, as Bull Run
Japanese and Oriental Beetle Trap (EPA Registration Number 84565-1) for
the control of Japanese and Oriental beetles.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pests and pesticides.

    Dated April 21, 2009.
 Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-10075 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42905-42910]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17267]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0760; FRL-9835-2]

Revision to the Washington State Implementation Plan; Approval of
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets and Determination of Attainment for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Standard; Tacoma-Pierce County
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a request submitted by the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) dated November 28, 2012, to
establish motor vehicle emission budgets for the Tacoma-Pierce County
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area to meet
transportation conformity requirements. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent
with) the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA requires federal
actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the
goals of SIP. This means that such actions will not cause or contribute
to violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
    Under the Transportation Conformity Rule, the EPA can approve motor
vehicle emission budgets based on the most recent year of clean data if
the EPA approves the request in the rulemaking that determines that the
area has attained the NAAQS for which the area is designated
nonattainment. In September 2012, the EPA finalized an attainment
finding for the Tacoma-Pierce County PM2.5 nonattainment
area (hereafter referred to as ``Tacoma-Pierce County Area'' or ``the
area''). This finding, also called a clean data determination, was
based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data showing that the area had monitored attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 data available
in the EPA's Air Quality System database. This action proposes to
update the previous finding of attainment with more recent 2010-2012
data and proposes to approve motor vehicle emission budgets under the
Transportation Conformity Rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0760, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2012-0760. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at telephone number: (206)
553-0256, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.
I. Background
II. Description of Attainment Year (Clean Data) MVEBs
III. Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data
IV. Effect of Determination of Attainment for 2006 PM2.5
Under Subpart 4
V. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related
Provisions of Subpart 4
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS set forth at 40 CFR 50.13 became
effective on December 18, 2006 and promulgated a 24-hour standard of 35
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentration (71 FR 61144, October 17,
2006). Effective December 14, 2009, the EPA designated Tacoma-Pierce
County (partial county designation) as a nonattainment area for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (74 FR 58688, November 13,
2009). Under 40 CFR 51.1002, states were required to submit within
three years of the effective date of a nonattainment designation a
revision to the SIP that meets nonattainment planning requirements.
Prior to Washington's SIP revision submittal, the EPA issued a proposed
finding of attainment on July 5, 2012, also called a clean data
determination, based upon certified ambient air monitoring data showing
that the Tacoma-Pierce County Area had met the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for the most recent 2009-2011 monitoring period (77 FR 39657).
The EPA received no comments on the proposal and issued a final finding
of attainment on September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53772). In accordance with 40
CFR 51.1004(c), in effect at that time, the September 4, 2012 finding
of attainment suspended the requirements for Washington to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
most other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard
for so long as the nonattainment area continues to meet the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, a finding of attainment does not
suspend the CAA section 176(c) obligation to meet transportation
conformity requirements.
    As described in 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5) of the Transportation
Conformity Rule, a state may request that motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) calculated for the most recent year of attainment be
used to satisfy the budget test as set forth in 40 CFR 93.118. Under
this option, the EPA approves the MVEBs request in a rulemaking that
determines the area has attained the NAAQS for which the area is
designated nonattainment. In this action, the EPA is reaffirming the
previous finding of attainment with updated 2010-2012 data and is
proposing to approve MVEBs under 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5)(iii) for the
Tacoma-Pierce County Area.

II. Description of Attainment Year (Clean Data) MVEBs

    The Transportation Conformity Rule allows the state air quality
agency to request that motor vehicle emissions in the most recent year
of clean data be used as budgets. The EPA must approve that request in
the rulemaking that determines that the area has attained the relevant
NAAQS (40 CFR 93.109(c)(5)(iii)). On November 28, 2012, Ecology
requested that the EPA establish MVEBs for PM2.5 and
nitrogen oxide (NOX) calculated for 2011, the first year of
attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County Area. These budgets were
calculated using the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator emissions model
(MOVES). See ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent
Minor Model Revisions for State Implementation Plan Development,
Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes'' (EPA, April 2012).
    Under the Transportation Conformity Rule, 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1) and
(2)(iv) and (v), only MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX for
the 2011 attainment year are applicable for meeting conformity
requirements in the Tacoma-Pierce County Area. The Transportation
Conformity Rule requires that MVEBs must address direct
PM2.5 emissions. NOX emissions must also be
included unless the EPA and state have made a finding that
transportation-related emissions of NOX are not a
significant contributor to the area's PM2.5 problem. There
was no such finding in this case. Therefore, Ecology requested that
MVEBs be established for on-road emissions of direct PM2.5
and NOX.
    Under the Transportation Conformity Rule, PM2.5
precursors volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and ammonia (NH3) must be addressed before
a SIP is submitted if either the EPA or the state air agency makes a
finding that on-road emissions of any of these precursors is a
significant contributor to the area's PM2.5 problem. Neither
the EPA nor Ecology has made such a finding with regard to any of these
precursors. Therefore, consistent with the Transportation Conformity
Rule, the State did not request that MVEBs be established for VOCs,
SO2 or NH3.
    The EPA promulgated conformity regulations to implement the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1,
2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). Subsequently, the EPA promulgated
conformity regulations to implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
March 2010 (75 FR 14260, March 24, 2010). Those actions were not part
of the final rules remanded to the EPA by the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (NRDC v. EPA). The Court remanded to the EPA
the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586;
April 25, 2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR)
Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008)
(collectively, ``1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule'' or
``Implementation Rule'') because it concluded that the EPA must
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific
provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than
solely under the general provisions of subpart 1. This decision does
not affect the EPA's proposed approval of the Tacoma-Pierce County
MVEBs. The EPA's conformity rules implementing the PM2.5
NAAQS were separate actions from the overall PM2.5
implementation rule addressed by the Court and were not considered or
disturbed by the decision. Therefore, the conformity regulations were
not at issue in NRDC v. EPA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2004 rulemaking addressed most of the transportation
conformity requirements that apply in PM2.5 nonattainment
and maintenance areas. The 2005 conformity rule included provisions
addressing treatment of PM2.5 precursors in MVEBs. See 40
CFR 93.102(b)(2). The 2010 rulemaking addressed requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. While none of these provisions were
challenged in the NRDC v. EPA case, the EPA also notes that the
court declined to address challenges to the EPA's presumptions
regarding PM2.5 precursors in the PM2.5
implementation rule. NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 437.

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

    The Transportation Conformity Rule's adequacy criteria at 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(i)-(v) are not directly applicable because they apply to
budgets that are part of a SIP submittal and the budgets that are under
review in this action were submitted under the Transportation
Conformity Rule provision that allows a state to request that budgets
be established through the EPA's clean data determination process.
However, these criteria establish a general framework for the review of
any MVEBs before those budgets are made effective for use in
transportation conformity determinations. For this reason, the EPA has
reviewed the direct PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs submitted
by the State by applying the general requirements of the criteria.
    Briefly, our review has determined:
     The request to establish these budgets was made by the
appropriate State official (letter addressed to Dennis M. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10, from Ted Sturdevant, Director,
Washington State Department of Ecology, November 28, 2012, included in
the docket for this action).
     The request for establishment of MVEBs underwent full
interagency consultation including consultation with representatives
from the following agencies: EPA, Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Transit Administration, Washington State Department of
Transportation, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, and Puget Sound Regional
Council. All meetings of the interagency air quality consultation
partners were open to the public, and the EPA raised no concerns with
the MVEBs or calculation methodology as part of the consultation
process.
     As shown below in Table 1, the budgets are clearly
identified and precisely quantified.
     The budgets are consistent with attainment of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS as they have been established for 2011,
which was the most recent year of clean data available at the time the
submittal was made in November 2012, and the area was attaining the for
the 2009-2011 period.
     The budgets are based on results from the EPA's approved
motor vehicle emission factor model, MOVES2010b. The modeling analyses
are based on the most recent planning information for the area and
include consideration of all relevant national regulations as well as
all previously established local transportation control measures.

   Table 1--2011 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Tacoma-Pierce
         County 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                        Pollutant                           (pounds per
                                                            winter day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...................................................           3,002
NOX.....................................................          71,598
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data

    The EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM2.5, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
part 50 for the Tacoma-Pierce County Area. All data considered have
been recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS) database, certified as
meeting quality assurance requirements, and determined to have met data
completeness requirements. On the basis of this review, the EPA has
concluded that the area continued to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS during the 2010-2012 monitoring period. The EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 50.7 provide that ``The 24-hour primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98th percentile
24-hour concentration, as determined in accordance with appendix N of
this part, is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m3.'' This calculation,
made in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N for determining
compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, is commonly
called a design value. Because the 2010-2012 design value at the
Federal Reference Method monitor (Tacoma South L Street) is 28 [mu]g/
m\3\, the EPA is proposing to determine that the area continues to have
monitored attainment for this NAAQS. Additional information about
design values for the Tacoma-Pierce County Area can be found at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

IV. Effect of Determination of Attainment for 2006 PM2.5
Under Subpart 4

    This section of the EPA's proposal addresses the effects of a final
determination of attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County Area. For the
1997 PM2.5 standard, 40 CFR 51.004 of the EPA's
Implementation Rule sets forth the EPA's ``Clean Data Policy''
interpretation under subpart 1 and the effects of a determination of
attainment with that standard (72 FR 20585, 20665, April 25, 2007).
While the regulatory provisions of Sec.  51.1004(c) do not explicitly
apply to the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the underlying statutory
interpretation is the same for both standards. See 77 FR 76427,
December 28, 2012 (proposed determination of attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 standard for Milwaukee, Wisconsin).
    As noted above, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently remanded
to the EPA the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. The Court
directed the EPA to re-promulgate the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule consistent with the Court's opinion. NRDC v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428. The Court found that the EPA erred in limiting
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA,
rather than the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of
part D of title I. In light of the remand of the Implementation Rule,
in the immediate action, the EPA addresses the effect of a final
determination of attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County Area, assuming
the area is classified as a moderate nonattainment area under subpart
4.\2\ As set forth in more detail below, under the EPA's Clean Data
Policy, a determination that the area has attained the standard
suspends the State's obligation to submit attainment-related planning
requirements of subpart 4 (and the applicable provisions of subpart 1)
so long as the area continues to attain the standard. The suspended
requirements include submission of an attainment demonstration (CAA
section 189(a)(1)(B)), meeting quantitative milestones demonstrating
reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment by the applicable
attainment date (CAA section 189(c)), provisions for reasonably
available control measures (RACM) (CAA section 189(a)(1)(C)), and
contingency measures (CAA section 172(c)(9). These requirements are
suspended because

their purpose is to help reach attainment, a goal which the Tacoma-
Pierce County Area has already achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the purposes of evaluating the effects of this proposed
determination of attainment under subpart 4, we are considering the
Tacoma-Pierce County Area to be a ``moderate'' PM2.5
nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas
designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be
classified by operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas,
and would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until the
EPA reclassifies the area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area or the
area fails to attain the standard by the attainment date and would
be reclassified to ``serious'' by operation of law. Accordingly, the
EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the
potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. In addition, in
reviewing Ecology's submittal the EPA also evaluates the applicable
requirements of subpart 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background on Clean Data Policy
    Over the past two decades, the EPA has consistently applied its
``Clean Data Policy'' to attainment-related provisions of subparts 1, 2
and 4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several EPA memoranda
and regulations. In addition, numerous individual rulemakings published
in the Federal Register have applied the policy to a spectrum of NAAQS,
including the ozone, PM10, PM2.5, CO and lead
standards. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Clean Data
Policy as embodied in the EPA's 8-hour ozone Implementation Rule, 40
CFR 51.918.\3\ See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other
federal Courts of Appeals that have considered and reviewed the EPA's
Clean Data Policy interpretation have upheld it and the rulemakings
applying the EPA's interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551
(10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004);
Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28,
2005) (memorandum opinion), Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos. 06-75831
and 08-71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``EPA's Final Rule to implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule)''. 70 FR
71612, 71645-46, November 29, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the EPA incorporated its Clean Data Policy
interpretation in both its 1997 8-hour Ozone Implementation Rule and in
its PM2.5 Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 51.1004(c) (72 FR
20585, 20665; April 25, 2007). While the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal,
in its January 4, 2013 opinion, remanded to the EPA the 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the Court's opinion did not
address the merits of that regulation, nor cast doubt on EPA's existing
interpretation of the statutory provisions.
    However, in light of the Court's opinion, we set forth here the
EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4, for the purpose
of identifying the effects of a determination of attainment for the
2006 PM2.5 standard for the Tacoma-Pierce County Area. The
EPA has previously articulated its Clean Data Policy interpretation
under subpart 4 in implementing the PM10 standard. See,
e.g., 75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010 (determination of attainment of the PM-
10 standard in Coso Junction, California); 75 FR 6571, February 10,
2010; 71 FR 6352, February 8, 2006 (Ajo, Arizona area); 71 FR 13021,
March 14, 2006 (Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 40023, July 14, 2006
(Weirton, West Virginia area); 71 FR 44920, August 8, 2006 (Rillito,
Arizona area); 71 FR 63642, October 30, 2006 (San Joaquin Valley,
California area); 72 FR 14422, March 28, 2007 (Miami, Arizona area); 75
FR 27944, May 19, 2010 (Coso Junction, California area). In these
determinations the EPA has established that, under subpart 4, an
attainment determination suspends the obligations to submit an
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP contingency measures, and other
measures related to attainment.

V. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related
Provisions of Subpart 4

    In the EPA's proposed and final rulemakings determining that the
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM10
standard, the EPA set forth at length its rationale for applying our
interpretation of the Clean Data Policy to PM10 under
subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit upheld the EPA's final rulemaking, and
specifically the EPA's application of the Clean Data Policy, in the
context of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, supra. Nos. 06-75831
and 08-71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009. In
rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the Clean Data Policy under
subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit stated, ``As the EPA
explained, if an area is in compliance with PM10 standards,
then further progress for the purpose of ensuring attainment is not
necessary.''
    The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the
more specific requirements of subpart 4 to the extent they are not
superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated
as nonattainment. See CAA section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains
specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10
nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013 opinion in
NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply to
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The EPA has longstanding general
guidance interpreting the 1990 amendments to the CAA, for use by states
in meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas.
See, ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the ``General Preamble''). In the
General Preamble, the EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and
subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements
were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more
specific PM10 requirements.'' 57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992.
These subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions
for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and
contingency measures.
    The EPA has long interpreted the provisions of part D, subpart 1 of
the Act (sections 171 and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP
for an area already attaining the NAAQS. For an area that is attaining,
showing that the state will make RFP towards attainment ``will,
therefore, have no meaning at that point.'' (57 FR at 13564). See 71 FR
40952 and 71 FR 63642 (proposed and final determination of attainment
for San Joaquin Valley); 75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944 (proposed and
final determination of attainment for Coso Junction). CAA section
189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states that:

    Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the
Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable
further progress, as defined in section [section 171(1)] of this
title, toward attainment by the applicable date.

    With respect to RFP, CAA section 171(1) states that, for purposes
of part D, RFP ``means such annual incremental reductions in emissions
of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus,
whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of CAA section
172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of CAA sections 182(b)
and (c), or the specific RFP requirements for PM10 areas of
part D, subpart 4, CAA section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is
to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date.
    The General Preamble, states that with respect to CAA section
189(c) that the purpose of the milestone requirement ``is to provide
for emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the
applicable attainment date (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267
(1990)).'' 57 FR 13539. If an area has in fact attained the standard,
the stated purpose of the RFP

requirement will have already been fulfilled.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Thus, we believe that it is a distinction without a
difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as
one to be achieved until an area is ``redesignated attainment,'' as
opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which
the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP
requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the
RFP requirements as applying until the ``attainment date,'' since
section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the
Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general
RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific
requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific
requirements may only be required ``for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard
by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). As discussed in the
text of this rulemaking, the EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in
light of the definition of RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated
in section 189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies
once the standard has been attained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the requirements of CAA section 189(c)(2) with respect
to milestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the
standard. CAA section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:

    Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone
applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of
such area is located shall submit to the Administrator a
demonstration . . . that the milestone has been met.

    Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further
milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission
showing that such milestones have been met. This is consistent with the
position that the EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement
of CAA section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and
also in the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with respect to the
requirements of CAA section 182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz
memorandum, titled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' the EPA also noted that CAA section
182(g), the milestone requirement of subpart 2, which is analogous to
provisions in CAA section 189(c), is suspended upon a determination
that an area has attained. The memorandum, also citing additional
provisions related to attainment demonstration and RFP requirements,
stated:

    Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the
attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or
182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit
the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not
submit the related SIP submission either.

1995 Seitz memorandum at 5.

    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of CAA
section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads
to the same result. CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan
provide for ``a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
[SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date . .
.''. As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring
attainment of the standard, the EPA believes there is no need for an
area to make a further submission containing additional measures to
achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of
the CAA section 172(c) requirements provided by the EPA in the General
Preamble, the December 14, 2004 Page memorandum titled ``Clean Data
Policy for the Fine Particulate National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'', and the CAA section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth
in the Seitz memorandum. As the EPA stated in the General Preamble, no
other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas
seeking redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will have been
reached.'' 57 FR 13564.
    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of CAA sections 172(c)(9). We have interpreted the contingency measure
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) \5\ as no longer applying when
an area has attained the standard because those ``contingency measures
are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.''
57 FR 13564; Seitz memorandum, pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ And section 182(c)(9) for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas

shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or
to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this
part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as
contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further
action by the State or [EPA].

The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the RFP and
attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are
implemented if RFP targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not
realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved
attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into
attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As the EPA stated
in the General Preamble: ``The section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date.'' 57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer apply
when an area has attained the standard.
    Both CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ``provisions
to assure that reasonably available control measures'' (i.e., RACM) are
implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble (57 FR 13560)
states that the EPA interprets CAA section 172(c)(1) so that RACM
requirements are a ``component'' of an area's attainment demonstration.
Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer
applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer applies.
The EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only
implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to
reasonable further progress or to attainment. 57 FR 13498. Thus, where
an area is already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures
are required.\6\ The EPA is interpreting CAA section 189(a)(1)(C)
consistent with its interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EPA's interpretation that the statute requires
implementation only of RACM measures that would advance attainment
was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002),
and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suspension of the obligations to submit SIP revisions
concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, contingency
measures and other related requirements exists only for as long as the
area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If the EPA
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has a
monitored violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being
suspended would no longer exist. Only if and when the EPA redesignates
the area to attainment would the area be relieved of these submission
obligations. Attainment determinations under the Clean Data Policy do
not shield an area from obligations unrelated to attainment in the
area.
    As set forth above, based on our proposed determination that the
Tacoma-Pierce County Area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, we propose to find that the obligations to
submit planning provisions to meet the requirements for an attainment
demonstration, RFP, RACM, and

contingency measures continue to be suspended for so long as the area
continues to monitor attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. If, in the future, the EPA determines after notice-and-comment
rulemaking that the area again violates the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for suspending the attainment
demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measure obligations would no
longer exist.

VI. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to determine, based on the most recent three years
of complete, quality-assured data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
part 50, appendix N, that the Tacoma-Pierce County Area is currently
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In conjunction with
and based upon our proposed determination that Tacoma-Pierce County
Area is attaining the standard, the EPA proposes to determine that the
obligation to submit the following attainment-related planning
requirements are not applicable for so long as the area continues to
attain the PM2.5 standard: The part D, subpart 4 obligations
to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to CAA section
189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), the RFP
provisions of CAA section 189(c), and related attainment demonstration,
RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions requirements of subpart 1,
CAA section 172. This proposed action, if finalized, would not
constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3).
In conjunction with this proposed finding of attainment, the EPA is
proposing to approve MVEBs calculated for the 2011 attainment year, the
year that the Tacoma-Pierce County first attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is proposing approval of MVEBs pursuant
to 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5)(iii), as described in the Transportation
Conformity Rule and the preamble of the Transportation Conformity
Restructuring Amendments (77 FR 14982, March 14, 2012).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the State, except for non-trust land within
the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known
as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided State and
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust
lands within the 1873 Survey Area and the EPA is therefore approving
this SIP on such lands. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a
consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated
December 11, 2012. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 8, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-17267 Filed 7-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35779-35780]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-449-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application

June 16, 2010.
    Take notice that on June 2, 2010, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application under section 7
of the Natural Gas Act, for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing the increase in certificated capacity at its
Redfield storage field, located in Dallas County, Iowa, and to provide
2.0 Bcf of firm natural gas storage service at market-based rates, all
as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates and External Affairs
for Northern, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, at (402)
398-7103 or Bret Fritch, Senior Regulatory Analyst, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the

proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: July 7, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15136 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 24, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-19148

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of  United Air Lines, Inc.  filed 9/15/04 for:

XX  Exemption for at least two years under 49 U.S. C. 40109 to the
extent necessary to permit United to display its designator code on
flights operated by Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) and other carriers
that operate flights on Lufthansa’s behalf on the following services:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between points in Germany; between points in the United States and
points in Germany, either nonstop or via third country intermediates;
and between points in Germany and points in third countries, either
nonstop or via third-country intermediates.

The Air Carrier Association of America (ACAA) and Continental filed
answers to United’s application.

The ACAA stated that under United’s proposal, a carrier could add
code-sharing listings whether or not it could fly to a particular market
on its own, and that United could list these flights even if it did not
have authority to operate them and would not have to identify which of
several carriers is actually operating.  The ACAA maintains that
United’s proposal would have a major impact on consumer choice and the
marketplace.

Continental did not object to United’s request so long as comparable
exemption authority is granted to Continental for code-share purposes.
Continental urges the Department to grant the same broad code-share
exemption authority currently held by American and United for code
sharing with their U.K. partners to Continental and other carriers such
as United and US Airways.

United filed a consolidated reply and agreed with Continental that the
Department should establish a consistent policy and apply it to all
code-share partnerships between U.S. and foreign airlines.  United
states that ACAA apparently misconstrues United’s application, which
would not affect the ultimate level of United’s code sharing in
international city pairs, but rather would enable United to expedite and
reduce the cost of implementing additional code-share services with
Lufthansa.  United maintains that the Department has documented the many
consumer benefits of international code-share alliances between U.S. and
foreign carriers.

ACAA responded to United’s consolidated reply and stated that it
believes that once the Department completes a review of United’s
request and an analysis of the growth of code-sharing relationships, it
will decide that the authorization requested by United should not be
approved.  The ACAA states that as a result of the continuing expansion
of code-sharing involving multiple relationships, the Department should
review the overall impact of code-sharing on consumers and competition
before it considers any additional exceptions to the code-share
requirements.

2

Applicant reps:  Jeffrey A. Manley<PHONE_NUMBER>)   DOT Analyst: Sylvia
Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The exemption authority granted was effective when taken:  January 24,
2005, through January 24, 2007

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

                              Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

	   XX  Conditions attached to United/Lufthansa blanket statements of
authorization (Order

	           98-4-8)

Remarks:  We have decided to grant United exemption authority comparable
to the exemption authority granted other carriers with similar requests
pursuant to code-share arrangements with their foreign partners (i.e.,
American/British Airways, Northwest/KLM, and US Airways/Lufthansa).
With regard to the concerns expressed by the ACAA, we find that the
conditions we have imposed, along with the regulations contained in 14
CFR Part 257, should provide the necessary degree of consumer
protection.  With regard to Continental’s comments, we note that we
are actively reviewing Continental’s pending applications in Dockets
OST-2004-19346 and OST-2004-19420 and expect to complete the process
shortly.

________________________________________________________________________
____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major federal action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within ten (10) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

																	  05/2004

 Those carriers include Lufthansa CityLine, Air Dolomiti, Condor
Flugdienst, and PrivatAir.

 United intends initially to use this authority to introduce scheduled
combination service between the United States and Libya by displaying
United’s designator code on flights operated by Lufthansa between
Frankfurt and Tripoli.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 59185]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23703]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9734-9]

Gulf of Mexico Citizen Advisory Committee; Notice of Charter
Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has determined that in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, the Gulf of
Mexico Citizen Advisory Committee (GMCAC) is a necessary committee
which is in the public interest. Accordingly, the GMCAC is renewed for
an additional two year period. The purpose of the GMCAC is to provide
advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues
associated with plans to improve and protect the water quality and
living resources of the Gulf of Mexico.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia Robertson, Designated Federal
Officer, Gulf of Mexico Program Office (Mail Code: EPA/GMPO), Stennis
Space Center, MS 39529, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 18, 2012.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
 [FR Doc. 2012-23703 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72016-72018]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27417]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-NYSE-2021-52; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Section 902.03 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Modify
Listing and Annual Fees Applicable to Certain Warrants Listed by
Foreign Companies

December 14, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 1, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.03 of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual (the ``Manual'') to modify the listing fees applicable
to warrants listed by foreign companies whose listed ADRs represent
multiple shares or a fraction of a share. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Section 902.03 of the Manual sets forth initial listing fees and
annual fees applicable to listed warrants. Initial listing fees for
warrants are charged on a per warrant basis.
    In many cases, foreign issuers list their equity securities on the
Exchange in the form of American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs''). In
some instances, a listed ADR will represent a single underlying common
share, but in other cases the listed ADR will represent multiple
underlying common shares or a fraction of an underlying common share.
    To the extent a company with listed ADRs representing multiple
underlying common shares or a fraction of an underlying common share
seeks to list warrants to purchase common shares, this transaction
could result in a numerical discrepancy between the number of warrants
issued and the number of ADRs that could be created if those warrants
were fully exercised. For example: A company's listed ADRs each
represent five underlying common shares. The company issues and lists
five million warrants, each exercisable for a single share. If the
warrants are fully exercised, this will result in the issuance of five
million shares. If those shares are all converted into the listed ADRs,
the five million shares issued would result in the creation of one
million ADRs.
    A discrepancy between the number of warrants issued and the number
of ADRs post-conversion results in a very different billing outcome
than would be the case for a company that lists its common shares
directly or lists ADRs each of which represents a single underlying
common share. In those cases, a listed company seeking to issue
warrants exercisable into one million units of its listed equity
security would issue one million warrants, rather than the five million
warrants issued in the example set forth above, and would therefore pay
only one-fifth of the initial listing and annual fees for the warrant
listing as compared to the company whose ADRs represent five underlying
common shares.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.03 to charge annual and
listing fees for warrants listed on ADRs on an ADR-equivalent basis.
Specifically:
     Listing Fees for Warrants Relating to Listed ADRs. If a
listed company's primary listed security is an ADR and it lists
warrants that are exercisable into the equity security underlying such
ADRs, it will be charged initial listing fees for the warrants adjusted
to reflect the maximum number of ADRs that could be created upon
exercise of such warrants.
    Example A: An issuer whose primary listed security is an ADR
representing five shares of its common stock lists five million
warrants, each exercisable into a single share of the common stock. The
issuer will be billed for listing fees for one million warrants (i.e.,
adjusted to reflect the number of ADRs that could be created with five
million shares).
    Example B: An issuer whose primary listed security is an ADR
representing one-fifth of a share of its common stock lists one million
warrants, each exercisable into one share of the common stock. The
issuer will be billed for initial listing and annual fees for five
million warrants (i.e., adjusted to reflect the number of ADRs that
could be created with one million shares).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Approximately 0.5% of the ADRs currently listed on the
Exchange represent fractional share interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Annual Fees for Warrants Relating to Listed ADRs. If a
listed company's primary listed security is an ADR and it lists
warrants that are exercisable into the equity security underlying such
ADRs, it will be charged annual fees for the outstanding warrants
adjusted to reflect the maximum number of ADRs that could be created
upon exercise of such warrants. Example: An issuer whose primary listed
security is an ADR representing five shares of its common stock, has a
listed class of warrants each exercisable into a single share of the
common stock, with five million warrants outstanding. The issuer will
be billed for annual fees for one million warrants (i.e., adjusted to
reflect the number of ADRs that could be created with five million
shares).
    The proposed amendments to the initial and annual fee provisions
for listed warrants would apply to all warrants exercisable into common
shares that are issued by a listed company whose primary listed
security is an ADR. In the case of a listed company whose ADRs
represent a multiple (a fraction) of a common share, the fees for any
warrants issued by the company that are exercisable into equity
securities underlying the ADR would be based on an adjustment downward
(upward) of the number of warrants.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that there is currently just one warrant
listed on the NYSE that is exercisable into common stock underlying
an ADR that is listed on the NYSE. This listed ADR represents 10
shares of the common stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \7\ of the Act, in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in that
it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a preliminary matter, the Exchange competes for listings with
other national securities exchanges, and companies can easily choose to
list on, or transfer to, those alternative venues. As a result, the
fees the Exchange can charge listed companies are constrained by the
fees charged by its competitors and the Exchange cannot charge prices
in a manner that would be unreasonable, inequitable, or unfairly
discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to charge listing fees for
warrants on an ADR-equivalent basis is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would remove the anomalous outcome that a
company whose listed ADRs represent multiple underlying common shares
must pay higher fees for the listing of warrants exercisable into its
listed equity securities than are paid by a company whose common stock
is listed directly or whose listed ADRs represent a single common
share.
    The Exchange recognizes that the proposal would result in a
differential treatment of warrants issued by companies with ADRs listed
on the Exchange from that of other issuers of warrants, leading to
lower bills in many cases for the companies with listed ADRs. However,
the Exchange notes that companies with listed ADRs that represent
multiple underlying shares (or fractional shares) face unique
circumstances when deciding how to structure their warrants. If those
companies want to market their warrants in both their home market and

the United States, there are clear advantages to the company and its
investors if the same security is issued in both markets. In
particular, selling the same security avoids pricing confusion and, by
ensuring complete fungibility, facilitates the movement of warrants
between the two markets in aftermarket trading. As the ADRs would not
be traded in the home market and might not be properly understood by
investors there, it is clear why a company would make the decision to
issue warrants to purchase a single common share in both markets rather
than selling warrants to purchase ADRs in the US market and warrants to
purchase a single share in the home market. While other categories of
listed companies may also sometimes choose to issue warrants that are
exercisable for multiple listed common shares or a fraction of a common
share, their reasons for doing so are not the same unique market
structural reasons that cause foreign companies to do so when their
listed equity security is an ADR. Consequently, while the proposal does
result in a different treatment of foreign companies with listed ADRs
in a very limited circumstance, the Exchange believes that this
proposed difference in treatment is not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange also notes that foreign companies with listed ADRs
would not always pay lower fees on warrants if this proposal was
adopted. Rather, the issuer would always pay fees on an ADR-equivalent
basis, which would result in lower fees if the listed ADR represents
multiple common shares and higher fees if it represents a fractional
common share.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed modified warrant
listing and annual fee for issuers whose listed ADRs represent multiple
underlying common shares will be applicable to all similarly situated
issuers on the same basis.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amended fees will
have any meaningful effect on the competition among issuers listed on
the Exchange. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which issuers can readily choose to list new securities on other
exchanges and transfer listings to other exchanges if they deem fee
levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response,
and because issuers may change their listing venue, the Exchange does
not believe its proposed fee change can impose any burden on
intermarket competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2021-52 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-NYSE-2021-52. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-52 and should be submitted on
or before January 10, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27417 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P