[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3468-3470]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER07-562-000.
    Applicants: Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company.
    Description: Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company, Revised
Electronic Informational Filing of 2011 Formula Rate Annual Update.

    Filed Date: 12/19/11.
    Accession Number: 20111219-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2124-002; ER10-2125-002; ER10-2127-002; ER10-
2128-002; ER10-2129-002; ER10-2130-002; ER10-2131-003; ER10-2132-002;
ER10-2133-003; ER10-2134-002; ER10-2135-002; ER10-2136-002; ER10-2137-
003; ER10-2138-003; ER10-2139-003; ER10-2140-003; ER10-2141-003; ER10-
2764-002; ER11-3872-003; ER11-4044-002; ER11-4046-002.
    Applicants: Forward Energy LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Invenergy
Cannon Falls LLC, Spindle Hill Energy LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC,
Grays Harbor Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Willow Creek Energy
LLC, Hardee Power Partners Limited, Judith Gap Energy LLC, Invenergy TN
LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge
Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC,
Vantage Wind Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Gratiot County Wind
LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Facts Under Market-Based
Rate Authority of Spring Canyon Energy LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5241.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2319-003; ER10-2320-003; ER10-2317-002; ER10-
2322-004; ER10-2324-003; ER10-2325-002; ER10-2332-003; ER10-2326-004;
ER10-2327-005; ER10-2328-003; ER10-2343-004; ER10-2331-004; ER10-2330-
004; ER11-4609-002.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, Triton Power
Michigan LLC, BE Allegheny LLC, BE CA LLC, BE Ironwood LLC, BE KJ LLC,
BE Rayle LLC, BE Alabama LLC, BE Louisiana LLC, Cedar Brakes I LLC,
Utility Contract Funding, LLC, Central Power & Lime LLC, Cedar Brakes
II, LLC, J.P. Morgan Commodities Canada Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of J.P. Morgan
Ventures Energy Corporation et. al.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4396-001.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Company submits tariff
filing per 35: 01--12--12 ITO Compliance Filing to be effective 9/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 1/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20120112-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-701-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.17(b): NYISO Amendment to 12/28/11 Filing re:
Coordinated Transaction Scheduling to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-802-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original Service Agreement No. 3171; Queue Position
W1-127 to be effective 12/13/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20120112-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-803-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2012-1-12--DPC E&P Agrmt
NOC--314-NSPW to be effective 3/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20120112-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-804-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Ltr Agmt Interim West of Devers Proj
NextEra Desert Center Blythe, LLC to be effective 1/9/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-805-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System, ITC Midwest
LLC.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: ITC-Nemo (1-13-12) to be
effective 2/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-806-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2012-01-13 CAISO's
Operations and Maintenance Cost Values Amendment to be effective 4/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-807-000.
    Applicants: NAEA Energy Massachusetts LLC.
    Description: NAEA Energy Massachusetts LLC submits tariff filing
per 35: Notice of Succession to be effective 1/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-808-000.
    Applicants: NAEA Newington Energy, LLC.
    Description: NAEA Newington Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per
35: Notice of Succession to be effective 1/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-809-000.
    Applicants: NAEA Ocean Peaking Power, LLC.
    Description: NAEA Ocean Peaking Power, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35: Notice of Succession to be effective 1/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-810-000.
    Applicants: NAEA Rock Springs, LLC.
    Description: NAEA Rock Springs, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Notice of Succession to be effective 1/13/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-4-000.
    Applicants: Order 697-C 2011 4th Quarter Site Acquisition.
    Description: Land Acquisition Report of Southern Company Services,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120113-5251.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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 385.211 and 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.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 13, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1282 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76209-76211]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-1008]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Witt-Penn Bridge Construction, Hackensack River;
Jersey City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of the Hackensack River surrounding the Witt-Penn Bridge between
Jersey City and Kearny, NJ. In response to a planned Witt-Penn Bridge
construction project, this rule allows the Coast Guard to prohibit all
vessel traffic through the safety zone during bridge replacement
operations that could pose an imminent hazard to persons and vessels
operating in the area. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety
of life in the vicinity of the construction of the Witt-Penn Bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective January 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2014-1008 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New York; telephone
(718) 354-4195, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port New York
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NJ DOT New Jersey Department of Transportation
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 7, 2011 the Coast Guard issued a Bridge Permit approving
the location and construction of the Witt-Penn Bridge across the
Hackensack River, mile 3.1, between Kearny and Jersey City, NJ. The
Coast Guard published a Solicitation of Comments from NJ DOT in the
First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners #16 (April 23,
2014) through #20 (May 21, 2014). This solicitation requested comments
regarding impacts to navigation from NJ DOT's proposed tentative
channel closures/restrictions.
    On June 26, 2015, we published an NPRM titled Safety Zone; Witt-
Penn Bridge Construction, Hackensack River; Jersey City, NJ in the
Federal Register (80 FR 36733). We invited comments on our proposed
regulatory action related to the bridge construction project. During
the comment period that ended August 25, 2015, we received one comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33
U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,

6.04-6, and 160.5 Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with
bridge construction will be a safety concern for anyone within
approximately 500 feet of the Witt-Penn Bridge. The purpose of this
rule is to ensure the safety of vessels and workers from hazards
associated with construction of the replacement Witt-Penn Bridge and
the follow-on demolition of the current Witt-Penn Bridge.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published June
26, 2015. We received one comment regarding nurse infection control in
a rural area in the State of Missouri. This is outside the purview of
this rulemaking. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone on January 7, 2016. The safety
zone will cover all navigable waters within approximately 500 feet of
the Witt-Penn Bridge (river mile 3.1) on the Hackensack River between
Jersey City and Kearny, NJ. The duration of the zone, one to 21 days,
is intended to ensure the safety of life and vessels during bridge
construction and demolition operations. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a
number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment
rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the safety zone
will be limited to the Hackensack River area, closures will be of a
limited duration (one to 21 days), and waterway users have already been
notified of the proposed closures through the Local Notice to Mariners.
Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue advanced public notifications to
local mariners through appropriate means, which may include but are not
limited to marine broadcasts or Local Notice to Mariners which would
allow the public an opportunity to plan for these closures.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting between one and 21 days that will
prohibit entry within

approximately 500 feet of the Witt-Penn Bridge. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.162 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.162  Safety Zone; Witt-Penn Bridge Construction, Hackensack
River, Jersey City, NJ.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters from
surface to bottom of the Hackensack River bound by the following
approximate positions: North of a line drawn from 40[deg]44'27.4'' N.,
074[deg]05'09.8'' W. to 40[deg]44'22.9'' N., 074[deg]04'53.1'' W. (NJ
PATH Bridge at mile 3.0), and south of a line drawn from
40[deg]44'33.2'' N., 074[deg]04'51.0'' W. to 40[deg]44'28.2'' N.,
074[deg]04'42.7'' W. (500 feet north of the new Witt-Penn Bridge) (NAD
83).
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated representative. A ``designated representative'' is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
to act on his or her behalf. A designated representative may be on an
official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with
vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the
Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this
regulation.
    (2) Official patrol vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of
any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
    (c) Enforcement periods. (1) This safety zone is in effect
permanently starting January 7, 2016, but will only be enforced when
deemed necessary by the COTP.
    (2) The Coast Guard will rely on the methods described in Sec.
165.7 to notify the public of the time and duration of any closure of
the safety zone. Violations of this safety zone may be reported to the
COTP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-Channel 16.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23, as well as paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section, apply.
    (2) During periods of enforcement, all persons and vessels must
comply with all orders and directions from the COTP or a COTP's
designated representative.
    (3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S.
Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the
operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.

    Dated: November 6, 2015.
M.H. Day,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2015-30907 Filed 12-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56779-56780]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25827]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0544; FRL-9971-36-OAR]

Notice of Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking To Change the RFS
Point of Obligation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Denials of rulemaking requests.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
of its denial of several petitions requesting that EPA initiate a
rulemaking process to reconsider or change 40 CFR 80.1406, which
identifies refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel fuel as the
entities responsible for complying with the annual percentage standards
adopted under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program.

DATES: November 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0544. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 26, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule (75 FR 14670)
establishing regulatory amendments to the renewable fuel standards
(``RFS'') program regulations to reflect statutory amendments to
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act enacted as part of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. These amended regulations
included 40 CFR 80.1406, identifying refiners and importers of gasoline
and diesel fuel as the ``obligated parties'' responsible for compliance
with the RFS annual standards. Beginning in 2014, and continuing to the
present, some obligated parties and other stakeholders have questioned
whether 40 CFR 80.1406 should be amended, and a number of them have
filed formal petitions for reconsideration of the definition of
``obligated party'' in 40 CFR 80.1406, or petitions for rulemaking to
amend the provision. On January 27, 2014, Monroe Energy LCC
(``Monroe'') filed a ``petition to revise'' 40 CFR 80.1406 to change
the RFS point of obligation, and on January 28, 2016, Monroe filed a
``petition for reconsideration'' of the regulation. On February 11,
2016, Alon Refining Krotz Springs, Inc.; American Refining Group, Inc.;
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.; Lion Oil Company; Ergon-West
Virginia, Inc.; Hunt Refining Company; Placid Refining Company LLC;
U.S. Oil & Refining Company (the ``Small Refinery Owners Ad Hoc
Coalition'') filed a petition for reconsideration of 40 CFR 80.1406. On
February 12, 2016, Valero Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries
(``Valero'') filed a ``petition to reconsider and revise'' the rule. On
June 13, 2016, Valero submitted a petition for rulemaking to change the
definition of ``obligated party.'' On August 4, 2016, the American Fuel
and Petrochemical Manufacturers (``AFPM'') filed a petition for
rulemaking to change the definition of ``obligated party.'' On
September 2, 2016, Holly Frontier also filed a petition for rulemaking
to change the definition of ``obligated party.''
    The petitioners all seek to have the point of obligation shifted
from refiners and importers, but differed somewhat in their suggestions
for alternatives in their petitions. Some requested in their petitions
that EPA shift the point of obligation from refiners and importers to
those parties that blend renewable fuel into transportation fuel.
Others suggested that it be shifted to those parties that hold title to
the gasoline or diesel fuel immediately prior to the sale of these
fuels at the terminal (these parties are commonly called the ``position
holders''), or to ``blenders and distributors''. All petitioners
argued, among other things, that shifting the point of obligation to
parties downstream of refiners and importers in the fuel distribution
system would align compliance responsibilities with the parties best
positioned to make decisions on how much renewable fuel is blended into
the transportation fuel supply in the United States. Some of the
petitioners further claimed that changing the point of obligation would
result in an increase in the production, distribution, and use of
renewable fuels in the United States and would reduce the cost of
transportation fuel to consumers.
    On November 22, 2016, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing its proposed denial of all petitions seeking a
change in the definition of ``obligated party'' in 40 CFR 80.1406, and
soliciting comment on its draft analysis of the petitions and proposed
rationale for denial. (81 FR 83776). EPA opened a public docket under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0544, where it made its draft analysis
available. EPA received over 18,000 comments on the proposed denial,
including comments from the petitioners, stakeholders, and individuals
supporting the request that EPA change the point of obligation for the
RFS program, as well as from many stakeholders and individuals
supporting

EPA's proposed denial and reasoning. In comments, petitioners were in
agreement that the point of obligation should be moved to ``position
holders.''

II. Final Denial

    The final decision document describing EPA's analysis of the
petitions seeking a change in the definition of ``obligated parties''
under the RFS program and our rationale for denying the petitions is
available in the docket referenced above (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0544). In evaluating this matter, EPA's primary consideration was
whether or not a change in the point of obligation would improve the
effectiveness of the program to achieve Congress's goals. EPA does not
believe the petitioners or commenters on the matter have demonstrated
that this would be the case. At the same time, EPA believes that a
change in the point of obligation would unnecessarily increase the
complexity of the program and undermine the success of the RFS program,
especially in the short term, as a result of increasing instability and
uncertainty in programmatic obligations.
    We believe that the current structure of the RFS program is working
to incentivize the production, distribution, and use of renewable
transportation fuels in the United States, while providing obligated
parties a number of options for acquiring the RINs they need to comply
with the RFS standards. We do not believe that petitioners have
demonstrated that changing the point of obligation would likely result
in increased use of renewable fuels. Changing the point of obligation
would not address challenges associated with commercializing cellulosic
biofuel technologies and the marketplace dynamics that inhibit the
greater use of fuels containing higher levels of ethanol, two of the
primary issues that inhibit the rate of growth in the supply of
renewable fuels today. Changing the point of obligation could also
disrupt investments reasonably made by participants in the fuels
industry in reliance on the regulatory structure the agency established
in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2010. While we do not anticipate a benefit
from changing the point of obligation, we do believe that such a change
would significantly increase the complexity of the RFS program, which
could negatively impact its effectiveness. In the short term we believe
that initiating a rulemaking to change the point of obligation could
work to counter the program's goals by causing significant confusion
and uncertainty in the fuels marketplace. Such a dynamic would likely
cause delays to the investments necessary to expand the supply of
renewable fuels in the United States, particularly investments in
cellulosic biofuels, the category of renewable fuels from which much of
the majority of the statutory volume increases in future years is
expected.
    In addition, changing the point of obligation could cause
restructuring of the fuels marketplace as newly obligated parties alter
their business practices to avoid the compliance costs associated with
being an obligated party under the RFS program. We believe these
changes would have no beneficial impact on the RFS program or renewable
fuel volumes and would decrease competition among parties that buy and
sell transportation fuels at the rack, potentially increasing fuel
prices for consumers and profit margins for refiners, especially those
not involved in fuel marketing. In addition, we note that in comments
on EPA's proposed denial, commenters favoring a change in the
definition of ``obligated party'' were predominantly in favor of
designating position holders as obligated parties. However, position
holders are not all refiners, importers or blenders. Therefore, EPA
believes the petitioners' proposal is not well aligned with the
authority provided EPA in the statute to place the RFS obligation on
``refineries, importers and blenders, as appropriate.''
    A number of parties that either petitioned EPA to change the
definition of ``obligated party,'' or commented favorably on those
petitions also challenged the rule establishing RFS standards for 2014,
2015 and 2016, alleging both that EPA had a duty to annually reconsider
the appropriate obligated parties under the RFS program and that it was
required to do so in response to comments suggesting that it could
potentially avoid or minimize its exercise of the inadequate domestic
supply waiver authority if it did so. In a recent ruling in that
litigation, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit declined to rule on the matter, and instead indicated
that EPA could address the matter either in the context of a remand of
the rule ordered on other grounds, or in response to the administrative
petitions that are the subject of this notice. See Americans for Clean
Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, 864 F.3d 691 (D.C. Cir.
2017) (``ACE''). As noted above, EPA is denying the petitions seeking a
change in the definition of ``obligated parties.'' EPA also is re-
affirming that the existing regulation applies in all years going
forward unless and until it is revised. EPA does not agree with the
petitioners in the ACE case that the statute requires annual
reconsideration of the matter and, to the extent that EPA has
discretion under the statute to undertake such annual reevaluations,
EPA declines to do so since we believe the lack of certainty that would
be associated with such an approach would undermine success in the
program.
    EPA has determined that this action is nationally applicable for
purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). since the result of this action is
that the current nationally-applicable regulation defining obligated
parties who must comply with nationally applicable percentage standards
developed under the RFS program remains in place. In the alternative,
even if this action were considered to be only locally or regionally
applicable, the action is of nationwide scope and effect for the same
reason, and because the action impacts entities that are broadly
distributed nationwide who must comply with the nationally-applicable
RFS percentage standards, as well as other entities who are broadly
distributed nationwide that could potentially have been subject to such
requirements if EPA had elected to grant the petitions seeking a change
in the definition of obligated parties.

    Dated: November 22, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-25827 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77183-77185]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30270]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71085; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 104--
Equities and 123C--Equities To Specify That Closings May Be Effectuated
Manually or Electronically

December 16, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 3, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 104--Equities and 123C--
Equities to specify that closings may be effectuated manually or
electronically. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes amend Rules 104--Equities (``Rule 104'') and
123C--Equities (``Rule 123C'') to specify that closings may be
effectuated manually or electronically.\3\ Rule 104(a)(3) currently
provides that designated market makers (``DMM'') have the
responsibility, among other things, to facilitate the close of trading
for each of the securities in which the DMM is registered as required
by Exchange rules (including Rule 123C), which may include supplying
liquidity as needed. Rule 104(b) further provides that DMM units shall
have the ability to employ algorithms for quoting and trading
consistent with Exchange and SEC regulations. As such, DMM units at the
Exchange all use algorithms to engage in quoting and trading activity
at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 104 is operating on a pilot basis as part of the
Exchange's New Market Model pilot and is in effect until January 31,
2014. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69812 (June 20, 2013),
78 FR 38766 (June 27, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 123D(1)--Equities specifies that openings may be effectuated
manually or electronically. Accordingly, the Exchange currently
provides DMM units with functionality to open a security, either on a
trade or on a quote, algorithmically. The Exchange is in the process of
making a technological change to enable DMM units to use algorithms to
close a security as well, i.e., to effectuate a close electronically.
The Exchange believes that such functionality would be consistent with
current Rule 104(b) because the rule already permits algorithms to
engage in quoting or trading activity. However, for the avoidance of
doubt, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C to add supplementary
material that parallels the current Rule 123D(1)--Equities rule
provision governing the manner by which openings are effectuated to
similarly provide that closings may be effectuated manually or
electronically.
    To assure that certain non-displayed interest that is eligible to
participate in manual transactions is included in the opening
transaction, Rule 104(a)(2) currently provides that the DMM and DMM
unit algorithms will have access to aggregate order information in
order to comply with their requirement to facilitate the opening.\4\
Because such non-displayed interest is also eligible to participate in
the closing transaction, the Exchange would similarly provide aggregate
order information to the DMM and DMM unit algorithm in order for the
DMM algorithm to close the security electronically. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(a)(3) to add that DMM and DMM unit
algorithms will have access to aggregate order information in order to
comply with their requirement to facilitate the close of trading as
required by Exchange rules. The proposed additional rule text mirrors
the current rule text in Rule 104(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Minimum Display Reserve interest, which includes Minimum
Display Reserve Orders pursuant to Rule 13--Equities and Floor
broker interest designated as reserve interest pursuant to Rule 70--
Equities, is eligible to participate in manual executions, which
include the open and close. Exchange systems include all interest
eligible to participate in the opening transaction in the aggregate
order information available for execution at a price point when the
DMM facilitates a manual transaction. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 34-58184 (July 17, 2008), 73 FR 42853 at 42868 (July 23,
2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-45) (The Exchange's equity trading rules are
based on the rules of the New York Stock Exchange LLC). See also
Rule 115--Equities (providing that the aggregated interest of
Minimum Display Reserve Orders may be included in the information a
DMM may provide to an inquiry from a Floor broker conducting a
market probe in the normal course of business).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 104(b)(iii) provides that the DMM unit's system employing
algorithms will have access only to publicly-available information.
However, as noted above, certain non-displayed interest must be
included in the opening or closing transaction. Currently, in order to
both include such interest in an opening that is effectuated
electronically and meet the Rule 104(b)(iii) requirements, the Exchange
delivers aggregate order information that includes such non-displayed
interest to DMM unit algorithms in a format that is accessible only for
the purpose of the opening transaction. Stated otherwise, such
information is not made available to the DMM algorithms that engage in
intraday quoting and trading activity. The Exchange proposes to use
similar mechanisms to deliver aggregate order information necessary for
DMM units to effectuate a closing transaction electronically so that it
is similarly restricted in its use and availability. In order to
provide additional transparency in Exchange rules, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 104(b)(iii) to add a qualifying statement that
except as provided for in Rule 104(a)(2) and proposed Rule 104(a)(3),
which as described above are of limited purpose, the DMM unit's system
employing algorithms will not have access to order

information that is not publicly available.
    The Exchange notes that Rules 104(b)(i) and (v) require all
functions performed by a DMM unit's algorithm operate consistent with
Exchange and SEC regulations and this proposed rule change maintains
that requirement. For example, if there is interest represented in the
trading crowd that must be included in the closing transaction pursuant
to Rule 123C(7)(a)(iii), the DMM would need to use a manner of closing
the security that assures that such interest is properly represented in
the closing transaction.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it provides clarity of under what circumstances a DMM unit may
employ algorithms. The current rule already specifies that a DMM unit
may use algorithms to engage in quoting and trading activity. Exchange
rules also specify that such algorithms may be used to effectuate an
opening electronically. The proposed rule change will provide
transparency that DMM unit algorithms may also be used to effectuate a
closing electronically. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
rule changes to Rules 104(a)(3) and 104(b)(iii) provide further
transparency regarding the manner by which information is made
available to DMM units for the purpose of facilitating a closing
transaction, which is consistent with current rules and practice
regarding what information is made available to DMM units for the
purpose of facilitating an opening transaction electronically. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes promote just and equitable
principles of trade because the provision of such order information to
DMM units assures that all electronically-entered interest that is
eligible to participate in an opening or closing transaction would
participate if such a transaction were to be effectuated
electronically, while at the same time maintaining protections afforded
to non-public order information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange further notes that the proposed change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it provides greater flexibility for
DMMs to operate remotely if the Exchange cannot open its lower
Manhattan physical location. Currently, if the Exchange needs to close
its physical location, as it did on October 29 and 30, 2012 during
Superstorm Sandy, the Exchange cannot operate because the opening and
closing transactions require manual intervention by a DMM located on
the Trading Floor, even when opening a security electronically. The
Exchange is currently in the process of developing technology for such
functions to be performed remotely by DMM units. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change, which provides DMM units with the
authority to effectuate a closing transaction either manually or
electronically, will enable the Exchange to proceed with its disaster
recovery plans to enable full remote access operations of the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed
to specify in Exchange rules that a DMM unit may use algorithms to
effectuate a closing transaction electronically. Because there are no
other market participants on the Exchange with the responsibilities and
duties specified in Rule 104 to facilitate a closing transaction, the
manner by which such responsibility is discharged does not create a
competitive issue with any other market participant. The Exchange
further notes that the manner by which information would be provided to
the DMM unit in order to facilitate a closing transaction
electronically is consistent with current rules and practice regarding
what information is made available to DMM units for the purpose of
facilitating an opening transaction electronically, including that such
information would be restricted in its use and availability for
intraday trading by the DMM unit.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \9\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-99 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-99. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-99 and should
be submitted on or before January 10, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30270 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P